South Africa Announces Plan to Leave ICC

[Costa Fierro]

Yes. However, knowing of the kinds of dictators still in power in African states who are members of the African Union (like Zimbabwe and Eritrea), I doubt that said court is actually effective.

The African Union sent 70 observers to Zimbabwe's elections and they were deemed free and fair. How you can compare Eritrea and Zimbabwe is beyond me.

Not sure if sarcasm or actual belief.

[Daburuetchi]

The African Union sent 70 observers to Zimbabwe's elections and they were deemed free and fair. How you can compare Eritrea and Zimbabwe is beyond me.

Not sure if sarcasm or actual belief.

Right because a belief backed by the African Union and the fact that Zimbabwe unlike Eritrea is not a one party state that crushes all dissent must be in jest.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Not sure if sarcasm or actual belief.

Right because a belief backed by the African Union and the fact that Zimbabwe unlike Eritrea is not a one party state that crushes all dissent must be in jest.

I was told by a white Rhodesian former classmate, that Mugabe is essentially a "black" Hitler.

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

I saw this and thought International Cricket Council. I'm disappointed

[Daburuetchi]

Right because a belief backed by the African Union and the fact that Zimbabwe unlike Eritrea is not a one party state that crushes all dissent must be in jest.

I was told by a white Rhodesian former classmate, that Mugabe is essentially a "black" Hitler.

Lol no possible class bias there am I right m8? If a colonist says so it must be true

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

I was told by a white Rhodesian former classmate, that Mugabe is essentially a "black" Hitler.

Lol no possible class bias there am I right m8? If a colonist says so it must be true

Well international observations seem to back up his claim when it comes to Mugabe and white people.

[Daburuetchi]

Lol no possible class bias there am I right m8? If a colonist says so it must be true

Well international observations seem to back up his claim when it comes to Mugabe and white people.

The white people came and stole the land of Zimbabwe and now that Zimbabwe is independent they expect it to not distribute land in a way that actually benefits the majority of people? I don't think reclaiming what was for centuries the land of the people of Zimbabwe is the same and Nazi Germany

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Well international observations seem to back up his claim when it comes to Mugabe and white people.

The white people came and stole the land of Zimbabwe and now that Zimbabwe is independent they expect it to not distribute land in a way that actually benefits the majority of people? I don't think reclaiming what was for centuries the land of the people of Zimbabwe is the same and Nazi Germany

Well, I don't mind that, it's just the way they "removed" the whites from the land is the questionable part, not to metion that there are anti-white policies within Zimbabwe, which is kinda racist don't you think? I mean state sponsored racism isn't new in Africa, but isn't that a little old and backwards nowadays?

[Neragua]

South Africa seemingly continues its slow march into regression. The country has so much squandered potential. This is just the latest line in that story.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

South Africa seemingly continues its slow march into regression. The country has so much squandered potential. This is just the latest line in that story.

The sad part is that South Africa is the most "developed" country in the entire continent.

[Juristonia]

Right because a belief backed by the African Union and the fact that Zimbabwe unlike Eritrea is not a one party state that crushes all dissent must be in jest.

I was told by a white Rhodesian former classmate, that Mugabe is essentially a "black" Hitler.

Every political leader is the new and improved Hitler according to someone on the opposite side.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

I was told by a white Rhodesian former classmate, that Mugabe is essentially a "black" Hitler.

Every political leader is the new and improved Hitler according to someone on the opposite side.

Not really, but I get your point.

[Risottia]

ZA supports genocidal tyrants and leaves international organisations over that. Is that even news?

[Neragua]

Well international observations seem to back up his claim when it comes to Mugabe and white people.

The white people came and stole the land of Zimbabwe and now that Zimbabwe is independent they expect it to not distribute land in a way that actually benefits the majority of people? I don't think reclaiming what was for centuries the land of the people of Zimbabwe is the same and Nazi Germany

If only that's what actually happened. Most white settlers in Zimbabwe were actually working class people who bought their land legitimately from local tribes. Especially in the case of the Ndebele people's, it was often traded for protection from the Shona. Now undoubtedly much of it was indeed stolen by the BSAP or railroad companies, etc., but the fact remains that many of the smallholders legitimate, legally own the land they live and work on. Mugabe is stealing their land, however you word it. Several high profile court cases in Zimbabwe from the late 90s upheld this. The constitution was therefore rewritten and the courts packed with puppets. Suddenly, it's now legal to "reclaim and redistribute" white farms. However, it's not just white owned farms, it's farms of political opponents.

That brings me to the next point: the land isn't being reclaimed and redistributed is a way that "benefits the majority of people". The vast majority of land has been given to Mugabe's cronies and political supporters. High profile ZANU-PF members hold vast tracts of land that remains uncultivated. Zimbabwe experienced (and continues to experience) some of the greatest food insecurity on the planet and that's not because of white people owning farms. It's because the land was taken from people who knew what they were doing and given to people as status rewards.

The few lower rank ZANU-PF members who were actually given land, were given amounts too small to farm in any profitable way. Not only that but they don't know how to work the land.

There is a reason Zimbabwe went from being the "breadbasket of Africa" to having some of the worst of levels of food security in the world.

[Daburuetchi]

The white people came and stole the land of Zimbabwe and now that Zimbabwe is independent they expect it to not distribute land in a way that actually benefits the majority of people? I don't think reclaiming what was for centuries the land of the people of Zimbabwe is the same and Nazi Germany

If only that's what actually happened. Most white settlers in Zimbabwe were actually working class people who bought their land legitimately from local tribes. Especially in the case of the Ndebele people's, it was often traded for protection from the Shona. Now undoubtedly much of it was indeed stolen by the BSAP or railroad companies, etc., but the fact remains that many of the smallholders legitimate, legally own the land they live and work on. Mugabe is stealing their land, however you word it. Several high profile court cases in Zimbabwe from the late 90s upheld this. The constitution was therefore rewritten and the courts packed with puppets. Suddenly, it's now legal to "reclaim and redistribute" white farms. However, it's not just white owned farms, it's farms of political opponents.

That brings me to the next point: the land isn't being reclaimed and redistributed is a way that "benefits the majority of people". The vast majority of land has been given to Mugabe's cronies and political supporters. High profile ZANU-PF members hold vast tracts of land that remains uncultivated. Zimbabwe experienced (and continues to experience) some of the greatest food insecurity on the planet and that's not because of white people owning farms. It's because the land was taken from people who knew what they were doing and given to people as status rewards.

The few lower rank ZANU-PF members who were actually given land, were given amounts too small to farm in any profitable way. Not only that but they don't know how to work the land.

There is a reason Zimbabwe went from being the "breadbasket of Africa" to having some of the worst of levels of food security in the world.

The vast majority of the richest land and under colonial rule was in the hand of white settlers. In 1999 eleven million hectares of the richest land were still in the hands of about 4,500 commercial farmers, the great majority of them white (https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/zimbab ... P129_27817) As a result of the program more than 237,858 Zimbabwean households have been provided with access to land. It can't be disputed that a significant number of Zimbabwean people have benefited despite corruption or the unfair expropriation of some white small landowners. For the first time the country is able to self determine after the horrible Lancaster agreement. Of course there are many problems and corruption but freeing oneself from the vestiges of colonialism is not easy

[Costa Fierro]

Right because a belief backed by the African Union and the fact that Zimbabwe unlike Eritrea is not a one party state that crushes all dissent must be in jest.

Zimbabwe may not be a single party state, but that doesn't make Robert Mugabe any less of a vote rigging, rights crushing dictator who has a penchant for ethnic cleansing and essentially turning his country from one of Africa's leading agricultural producers into a basket case with rampant corruption and a worthless currency.

The white people came and stole the land of Zimbabwe and now that Zimbabwe is independent they expect it to not distribute land in a way that actually benefits the majority of people? I don't think reclaiming what was for centuries the land of the people of Zimbabwe is the same and Nazi Germany

And how has that turned out? Zimbabwe's economy has tanked, it's currency worthless and millions of Zimbabweans live in abject poverty.

[Daburuetchi]

Right because a belief backed by the African Union and the fact that Zimbabwe unlike Eritrea is not a one party state that crushes all dissent must be in jest.

Zimbabwe may not be a single party state, but that doesn't make Robert Mugabe any less of a vote rigging, rights crushing dictator who has a penchant for ethnic cleansing and essentially turning his country from one of Africa's leading agricultural producers into a basket case with rampant corruption and a worthless currency.

The white people came and stole the land of Zimbabwe and now that Zimbabwe is independent they expect it to not distribute land in a way that actually benefits the majority of people? I don't think reclaiming what was for centuries the land of the people of Zimbabwe is the same and Nazi Germany

And how has that turned out? Zimbabwe's economy has tanked, it's currency worthless and millions of Zimbabweans live in abject poverty.

Ethnic cleansing? This aint the Balkan wars. You can criticize Zimbabwe for corruption and abuses but expropriating land from rich landowners is not tantamount to ethnic cleansing. Nor does Mugabe qualify as a dictator when the African Union has backed the legitimacy of his elections. It is extremely difficult to transition out of colonialism and while you can rightly point out the many short comings of the regime it is legitimate and it is trying to lift Zimbabwe out of the chains of imperialism. Let the people of Zimbabwe determine their own destiny

[Costa Fierro]

You can criticize Zimbabwe for corruption and abuses but expropriating land from rich landowners is not tantamount to ethnic cleansing.

It is when you only target farmers of a specific ethnic group.

Nor does Mugabe qualify as a dictator when the African Union has backed the legitimacy of his elections.

The African Union is a farce. Mugabe is a dictator, pure and simple.

Let the people of Zimbabwe determine their own destiny

They would if Mugabe would let them.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Tough luck, South Africa. You raise me withdrawal, I raise you article 127 of the Rome Statue.

Article 127
Withdrawal
1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations, withdraw from this Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect
one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification
specifies a later date.

2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations
arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial
obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any
cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and
proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate
and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became
effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any
matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on
which the withdrawal became effective.

Notice the second section of the article. Whether South Africa leaves or not is of no importance. She is still obliged to help in the prosecution, even after leaving. And she has to remain a signatory for a year after withdrawal. If South Africa chooses not the cooperate, we can look at article 119 (below), regarding the settlement of disputes. If all else fails, South Africa will be challenged before the International Court of Justice, an entity seperate from the ICC, from which you cannot withdraw after signing a treaty like the Rome Statute (that's an oversimplification, but it works for the time being). There is no way out of this case. I hope cooler, more legally inclined heads will prevail in parliament, because leaving the Rome Statute would do absolutely nothing for South Africa.

Article 119
Settlement of disputes
1. Any dispute concerning the judicial functions of the Court shall be settled by the
decision of the Court.

2. Any other dispute between two or more States Parties relating to the
interpretation or application of this Statute which is not settled through
negotiations within three months of their commencement shall be referred to the
Assembly of States Parties. The Assembly may itself seek to settle the dispute or
may make recommendations on further means of settlement of the dispute,
including referral to the International Court of Justice in conformity with the
Statute of that Court.

[Wormold]

2) You're right, the ICTY, but again, the issue isn't the trial of Milosevic, it's the lack of trial of Thaci. I can look through ICC's case and find areas where they are biased if you'd like.

What makes you think that the ICC has the jurisdiction to put Hashim Thaçi on trial?

The Court does not have universal jurisdiction. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction if:

-The accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;
-The crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or
-The United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.

The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002.

For the ICC to attempt to put Hashim Thaçi on trial, he would have to be referred to the court by a state that is a member of the court, an NGO or the UNSC. As Kosovo is not a member of the ICC he fails the nationality element. He would have to have committed one of the crimes that is within the remit of the ICC (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or crimes of aggression) after 1st July 2002 in a member country to be prosecuted.

3) Not at all. South Africa saying that "hey mighty Euros, we Africans are so inept that we need your absolutely biased court to carry out justice against a genocidal dictator", is something that sounds bad in Africa. Especially for a country that wants to lead Africa.

4) Ergo you're admitting that by handing out Bashir to ICC, South Africa would be admitting that Africans need biased European Courts to try genocidal dictators. Sort of a kick in the balls for Africans.

I'm not saying that Bashir shouldn't be tried. I am saying that Bashir, and several others involved in the situation, should be tried by the African equivalent of the ECHR, and in the absence of such, one should be created.

The ICC is not a 'European' court. The clue is in the name, its an international court. The depositary for the Rome Statute that created the ICC is the UN. The president of the ICC is an Argentinian - there has never been a European president. Both the chief prosecutor and one of the vice presidents is African. The other vice president is Asian. Every state that is a party to the court gets a vote on who the judges will be and as of right now four judges are African. How does that make the ICC a European court?

[Shofercia]

2) You're right, the ICTY, but again, the issue isn't the trial of Milosevic, it's the lack of trial of Thaci. I can look through ICC's case and find areas where they are biased if you'd like.

What makes you think that the ICC has the jurisdiction to put Hashim Thaçi on trial?

I just admitted that it's the ICTY, not the ICC. And the ICTY should've put Thaci on trial when they put Milosevic on trial. They didn't, and as a result the ICTY came off as a "my side yay, your side boo" kind of court. Not exactly something that'll promote fair jurisprudence.

The Court does not have universal jurisdiction. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction if:

-The accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;
-The crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or
-The United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.

The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002.

For the ICC to attempt to put Hashim Thaçi on trial, he would have to be referred to the court by a state that is a member of the court, an NGO or the UNSC. As Kosovo is not a member of the ICC he fails the nationality element. He would have to have committed one of the crimes that is within the remit of the ICC (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or crimes of aggression) after 1st July 2002 in a member country to be prosecuted.

Again, I already admitted the ICC-ICTY error.

3) Not at all. South Africa saying that "hey mighty Euros, we Africans are so inept that we need your absolutely biased court to carry out justice against a genocidal dictator", is something that sounds bad in Africa. Especially for a country that wants to lead Africa.

4) Ergo you're admitting that by handing out Bashir to ICC, South Africa would be admitting that Africans need biased European Courts to try genocidal dictators. Sort of a kick in the balls for Africans.

I'm not saying that Bashir shouldn't be tried. I am saying that Bashir, and several others involved in the situation, should be tried by the African equivalent of the ECHR, and in the absence of such, one should be created.

The ICC is not a 'European' court. The clue is in the name, its an international court. The depositary for the Rome Statute that created the ICC is the UN. The president of the ICC is an Argentinian - there has never been a European president. Both the chief prosecutor and one of the vice presidents is African. The other vice president is Asian. Every state that is a party to the court gets a vote on who the judges will be and as of right now four judges are African. How does that make the ICC a European court?

Oh, the clue is the name, I see. Using that logic, it's crystal clear that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, since the clue is in the name. Where's the ICC located? Hmm, that'd be the Hague. Has the ICC tried any dictators that are backed by EU countries and/or the US? Not were backed but then dumped, but are backed? Like, say, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo? Oh, and there's also this: Three signatory states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute. By a purely masterful coincidence, only the African country's targeted. So when's the ICC going after Americans who profited off of the Iraq War in an illegal manner? Oh right, never. Furthermore, as I read the names of those indicted, nearly all of them happen to be from Africa. Good to know that there's so little crime happening everywhere else. But hey, it's totally not a Court where mostly Africans are tried. It's "international", since it's in the name. And North Korea's "democratic", since that's also, in the name.

[USS Monitor]

The ICC, which began functioning in 2002 and is based in the Hague in the Netherlands, has faced criticism because all eight of its official investigations have involved African nations, though preliminary examinations involving countries in Latin America and the Middle East are ongoing. A total of 34 African states are currently party to the ICC.

I can see why they've faced criticism. African nations are not the only places where crimes against humanity have been committed since 2002.

But I don't think sulking and letting Bashir go is a great response.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

I can see why they've faced criticism. African nations are not the only places where crimes against humanity have been committed since 2002.

But I don't think sulking and letting Bashir go is a great response.

Nonsense. Since the ICC is biased towards only trying African criminals, that means the ones they trie must be innocent (or so some people seem to believe).

[Cartagine]

I agree with the OP. Even though the ICC may be biased, South Africa shouldn't leave it nor should any other state. Instead i believe it should start to work on something to remove that bias from the ICC.

[Saiwania]

Bwahahaha. I recall this other player on here claiming that countries can't simply up and leave the treaties they agreed to, but it looks like South Africa is doing just that in unilaterally breaking ties with the ICC. I was vindicated. In the end, treaties in general can and do get reduced to just a piece of paper that is freely discarded. My congratulations to South Africa for retaking their judicial independence.