Complementarity and Cultural Sensitivity: Decision-making by the International Criminal Court Prosecutor in the Darfur Situation

in International Criminal Law Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This article argues that the normative basis of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is heavily influenced by a European Kantian interpretation of universal justice which, through the Court’s complementarity regime, comes into direct conflict with other global jurisprudential traditions such as that of Islam. Since the institutional architecture of the ICC has excluded any non-European or oriental concepts of universal jurisdiction, the encounter with Islam and more particularly Shari’ah, has become the most important confrontation which the Kantian ICC has had to face. It goes on to examine the reaction of the Islamic world to the Court as a Western instrument for great power influence. It takes the Darfur situation in Sudan as an example of prosecutorial insensitivity towards local culture and tradition in the operation of complementarity, concluding that the Court needs to decentralise its power to make it acceptable and justifiable to all nations. Furthermore, it suggests that dialogue and negotiation can play a crucial role to provide mutual understanding among different participants.

Complementarity and Cultural Sensitivity: Decision-making by the International Criminal Court Prosecutor in the Darfur Situation

in International Criminal Law Review

Sections

References

7

Mark J. FindlayGoverning through Globalised Crime. Futures for International Criminal Justice (Cullompton: Willan2008) pp. 196–204.

9

Mohamed El-ZeidyThe Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law: Origin Development and Practice (Leiden: Martinus, Nijhoff2008).

23

Brantssupra note 17.

24

Christoph J M SafferlingTowards an International Criminal Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press2001).

27

Raubersupra note 21 p. 63 See also Thomas Giegerich ‘The Is and Ought of International Constitutionalism: How Far Have We Come on Habermas’s Road to a Well-Considered Constitutionalization of International Law’ 10 German Law Journal (2009) 31–62 p. 34.

29

Finesupra note 25 p. 615.

34

Raubersupra note 21 p. 52.

35

Finesupra note 25 p. 610.

39

Robert FineCosmopolitan (Abingdon: Routledge2008).

42

Bogdandysupra note 32 p. 23.

44

Habermassupra note 40 p. 129.

47

Habermassupra note 43 p. 135.

48

Finesupra note 25 p. 613.

49

Fine and Smithsupra note 41 pp. 473–476.

51

Raubersupra note 21 p. 70.

54

Wolinsupra note 30 p. 146.

55

Ralphsupra note 6.

56

Koskenniemisupra note 28 p. 8.

60

Bassiounisupra note 3 pp. 30–40.

66

Nisrine AbiadSharia Muslim States and International Human Rights Treaty Obligations: A Comparative Study (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law2008) p. 51.

68

Badarsupra note 61 p. 414.

70

Rudolph PetersCrime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-first Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2006) p. 124.

74

Al-Muhairisupra note 62 p. 308.

76

Peterssupra note 70 p. 146.

78

Peterssupra note 70 p. 146.

79

Badarsupra note 61.

80

Muhammad Z. KhanIslam and Human Rights (Islamabad: Islam International Publications Ltd1999) p. 73.

81

Mohamed El-AwaPunishment in Islamic Law: A Comparative Study (Plainfield: American Trust Publications2000) p. 136.

82

Peterssupra note 70 p. 190.

91

Peterssupra note 70 p. 190.

93

Austin Dacey and Colin KoproskeIslam & human rights: Defining Universality at the United Nations p. 19 <www.centerforinquiry.net> 26 December 2013.

94

Peterssupra note 70 p. 190.

103

Khansupra note 80 p. 28.

105

Al-Muhairisupra note 62 p. 293.

106

Magedsupra note 92.

107

Al-Awanisupra note 75 p. 3.

108

Al-Muhairisupra note 62 p. 308.

111

Magedsupra note 92.

112

Badarsupra note 61.

118

Nassarsupra note 113 p. 591.

119

Badarsupra note 61 p. 411.

128

ICC-02/05-01/09 15 July 2013Decision Regarding Omar Al-Bashir’s Visit to the Federal Republic of Nigeria para. 7.

140

Webersupra note 134 p. 18.

146

Jo StigenThe Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions: The Principle of Complementarity (Leiden: Martinus, Nijhoff2008) p. 366.

149

Since 1972seven countries Libya Pakistan Iran Sudan Northern Nigeria United Arab Emirates and Kelantan (one of the federal states of Malaysia) have enacted legislation to reintroduce Islamic criminal law. See e.g. Peters supra note 70 p. 153; R Mehdi ‘The Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act 2006 in Pakistan’ 59 Droit et Cultures (2010) pp. 191–206.

156

Cherif Bassiouni and Motalasupra note 152 p. 232.

163

HRW reportsupra note 151.

165

REDRESSsupra note 162.

167

HRWsupra note 151.

172

UNCOIsupra note 107.

173

The Sudanese Criminal Act 1991.

176

UNCOIsupra note 107.

183

HRW reportsupra note 151.

192

Mamdanisupra note 178 p. 87.

196

Pojmansupra note 18 p. 62.

214

Mahmood MamdaniSaviors and Survivors: Darfur Politics and the War on Terror (New York: Doubleday2009) p. 203.

217

Brownsupra note 11.

225

Hans Köchler‘Universal Jurisdiction and International Power Politics: Ideal versus Real’Yeditepe’de Felsefe (2006) 1–20 p. 19.

230

Almqvistsupra note 12 p. 747.

232

Peterssupra note 70 p. 190.

236

Findlaysupra note 7 p. 223.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 22 22 6
Full Text Views 74 74 51
PDF Downloads 3 3 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0