国际刑事法院与非洲的关系:比简单的二分法更复杂

Emily Rowe
{"title":"国际刑事法院与非洲的关系:比简单的二分法更复杂","authors":"Emily Rowe","doi":"10.26443/firr.v11i2.75","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) legitimacy, as an independent and unbiased international criminal court, has been brought into question, for all 30 official cases opened to this date are against African nationals. The ICC-African relationship is often framed in this excessively simplistic dichotomy: either the ICC is regarded as a Western neo-imperial colonial tool, or as a legal institutional champion of global human rights, rid of the political. Nevertheless, each obfuscates the complexity of this relationship by purporting either extreme.  Rather, it is the legal framework of the ICC that necessitates selectivity bias against nationals from developing countries, in particular, African states. The principle of complementarity and the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) referral power embedded in the ICC’s legal framework, allows for African nations to be disproportionately preliminarily examined, investigated, and then tried, while enabling warranted cases against nationals from developed states to circumvent such targeting. Therefore, the primary issue lies not in cases the ICC has opened, but in the cases it has not. ","PeriodicalId":417989,"journal":{"name":"Flux: International Relations Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ICC-African Relationship: More Complex Than a Simplistic Dichotomy\",\"authors\":\"Emily Rowe\",\"doi\":\"10.26443/firr.v11i2.75\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) legitimacy, as an independent and unbiased international criminal court, has been brought into question, for all 30 official cases opened to this date are against African nationals. The ICC-African relationship is often framed in this excessively simplistic dichotomy: either the ICC is regarded as a Western neo-imperial colonial tool, or as a legal institutional champion of global human rights, rid of the political. Nevertheless, each obfuscates the complexity of this relationship by purporting either extreme.  Rather, it is the legal framework of the ICC that necessitates selectivity bias against nationals from developing countries, in particular, African states. The principle of complementarity and the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) referral power embedded in the ICC’s legal framework, allows for African nations to be disproportionately preliminarily examined, investigated, and then tried, while enabling warranted cases against nationals from developed states to circumvent such targeting. Therefore, the primary issue lies not in cases the ICC has opened, but in the cases it has not. \",\"PeriodicalId\":417989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Flux: International Relations Review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Flux: International Relations Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26443/firr.v11i2.75\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Flux: International Relations Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26443/firr.v11i2.75","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际刑事法院作为一个独立和公正的国际刑事法院的合法性已受到质疑,因为迄今为止已审理的所有30起正式案件都是针对非洲国民的。国际刑事法院与非洲的关系常常被框制在这种过于简单化的二分法中:国际刑事法院要么被视为西方新帝国主义的殖民工具,要么被视为摆脱政治影响的全球人权的法律机构捍卫者。然而,每个人都声称自己是极端的,从而混淆了这种关系的复杂性。相反,是国际刑事法院的法律框架使得对发展中国家,特别是非洲国家国民的选择性偏见成为必要。互补性原则和联合国安理会移交权力嵌入国际刑事法院的法律框架,允许非洲国家受到不成比例的初步审查、调查和审判,同时允许针对发达国家国民的正当案件绕过这种针对目标。因此,主要问题不在于国际刑事法院已审理的案件,而在于它尚未审理的案件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The ICC-African Relationship: More Complex Than a Simplistic Dichotomy
The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) legitimacy, as an independent and unbiased international criminal court, has been brought into question, for all 30 official cases opened to this date are against African nationals. The ICC-African relationship is often framed in this excessively simplistic dichotomy: either the ICC is regarded as a Western neo-imperial colonial tool, or as a legal institutional champion of global human rights, rid of the political. Nevertheless, each obfuscates the complexity of this relationship by purporting either extreme.  Rather, it is the legal framework of the ICC that necessitates selectivity bias against nationals from developing countries, in particular, African states. The principle of complementarity and the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) referral power embedded in the ICC’s legal framework, allows for African nations to be disproportionately preliminarily examined, investigated, and then tried, while enabling warranted cases against nationals from developed states to circumvent such targeting. Therefore, the primary issue lies not in cases the ICC has opened, but in the cases it has not. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond the Veil Investigating the aspiration and feasibility of a Turkish shift to nuclear weapons Is Erdogan’s narrative something to fear? Fostering Inclusivity in Peacekeeping The Erasure of a Black Sense of Place for Capital Accumulation: The Case of Little Jamaica A Forgotten Mission, An Unrealized Referendum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1