South Africa Announces Plan to Leave ICC

[Napkiraly]

So, it would seem that South Africa is getting ready to debate in parliament whether or not it should leave the International Criminal Court, after the ANC conference voted to pursue this action (it should be noted that the ANC has a comfortable majority in parliament). This comes after refusing to detain Omar Bashir on behalf of the court, due to the charges against him for things such as genocide. Of course this is just a long running conflict between the ICC and various African states, which accuse the ICC of only targeting the crimes of weak African states, while ignoring the crimes of wealthier, predominately Western states.

Full story:

South Africa plans to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC), a deputy minister said on Sunday, as the government faces criticism for ignoring a court order to arrest Sudan's president earlier this year.

The ICC has "lost its direction" and the ruling African National Congress (ANC) wants to withdraw South Africa after following certain processes, Obed Bapela, deputy minister in the Presidency, told reporters after a ruling party policy meeting.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, accused of genocide and war crimes, visited the country in June, but was allowed to leave despite a court order to detain him. The government last week asked the ICC for more time to explain why it allowed this.

Related: Sudan's President Dodges Potential War Crimes Arrest By Hopping on Private Jet

But the ruling party this weekend resolved to leave the ICC, with Bapela saying powerful nations "trample" human rights and pursue "selfish interests."

"South Africa still holds the flag of human rights, we are not lowering it," he said, adding parliament would now debate ICC membership.

The ANC commands a comfortable majority in the legislature of Africa's most advanced economy, with more than 60 percent of the vote.

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.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly in 2013, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn repeated the charges that the ICC disproportionately targets weak African countries while ignoring crimes in wealthier, more powerful nations.

"The manner in which the ICC has been operating has left a very bad impression in Africa," Desalegn said. "It is totally unacceptable."

Sauce: https://news.vice.com/article/south-africa-plans-to-leave-the-icc-after-ignoring-order-to-arrest-sudans-president?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Extra sauces:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/11/anc-withdraw-south-africa-international-criminal-court
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11925482/South-Africas-ruling-party-ANC-votes-to-withdraw-from-the-International-Criminal-Court.html

Opinion: I think this is a big mistake, which will only make enforcing international and humanitarian law harder. While there are legitimate concerns as to potential bias in which cases the ICC decides to pursue, it doesn't help that there are a number of powerful countries that refuse to ratify the treaty (the USA among them), or countries in the West that have but have since been revealed to have taken part in a number of human rights abuses since then (especially in regards to extraordinary rendition), which damage its legitimacy and effectiveness. That said, I don't think this is the correct move as it will encourage other states to then ignore the ICC's requests or just simply leave, which will hamper the ability for some justice to be met for the victims of human rights abuses across the globe.

Anyway fellow NSGer's, what say ye?

[Volga Tataria]

Erm...that makes no sense.

[Napkiraly]

Erm...that makes no sense.

What do you mean?

[Gauthier]

The ICC and UN, best buds 4 life.

[MERIZoC]

"South Africa still holds the flag of human rights, we are not lowering it," he said, adding parliament would now debate ICC membership.

Bullshit. If anything proved that wrong, it was allowing al-Bashir to continue on his merry way.

[Shofercia]

So, it would seem that South Africa is getting ready to debate in parliament whether or not it should leave the International Criminal Court, after the ANC conference voted to pursue this action (it should be noted that the ANC has a comfortable majority in parliament). This comes after refusing to detain Omar Bashir on behalf of the court, due to the charges against him for things such as genocide. Of course this is just a long running conflict between the ICC and various African states, which accuse the ICC of only targeting the crimes of weak African states, while ignoring the crimes of wealthier, predominately Western states.

Full story:

South Africa plans to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC), a deputy minister said on Sunday, as the government faces criticism for ignoring a court order to arrest Sudan's president earlier this year.

The ICC has "lost its direction" and the ruling African National Congress (ANC) wants to withdraw South Africa after following certain processes, Obed Bapela, deputy minister in the Presidency, told reporters after a ruling party policy meeting.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, accused of genocide and war crimes, visited the country in June, but was allowed to leave despite a court order to detain him. The government last week asked the ICC for more time to explain why it allowed this.

Related: Sudan's President Dodges Potential War Crimes Arrest By Hopping on Private Jet

But the ruling party this weekend resolved to leave the ICC, with Bapela saying powerful nations "trample" human rights and pursue "selfish interests."

"South Africa still holds the flag of human rights, we are not lowering it," he said, adding parliament would now debate ICC membership.

The ANC commands a comfortable majority in the legislature of Africa's most advanced economy, with more than 60 percent of the vote.

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.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly in 2013, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn repeated the charges that the ICC disproportionately targets weak African countries while ignoring crimes in wealthier, more powerful nations.

"The manner in which the ICC has been operating has left a very bad impression in Africa," Desalegn said. "It is totally unacceptable."

Sauce: https://news.vice.com/article/south-africa-plans-to-leave-the-icc-after-ignoring-order-to-arrest-sudans-president?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Extra sauces:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/11/anc-withdraw-south-africa-international-criminal-court
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11925482/South-Africas-ruling-party-ANC-votes-to-withdraw-from-the-International-Criminal-Court.html

Opinion: I think this is a big mistake, which will only make enforcing international and humanitarian law harder. While there are legitimate concerns as to potential bias in which cases the ICC decides to pursue, it doesn't help that there are a number of powerful countries that refuse to ratify the treaty (the USA among them), or countries in the West that have but have since been revealed to have taken part in a number of human rights abuses since then (especially in regards to extraordinary rendition), which damage its legitimacy and effectiveness. That said, I don't think this is the correct move as it will encourage other states to then ignore the ICC's requests or just simply leave, which will hamper the ability for some justice to be met for the victims of human rights abuses across the globe.

Anyway fellow NSGer's, what say ye?

Countries are free to leave and join international organizations. And when the ICC prosecutes Milosevic and ignores Thaci, it's a tad hard for them to be considered a neutral organization. Considering that South Africa wants to play a leading role in Africa, of course their going to think that Africa's opinion is more valid than the ICC's. Does Africa have their own court, like the ECHR in Europe, which, btw, is a lot more sane.

[Napkiraly]

So, it would seem that South Africa is getting ready to debate in parliament whether or not it should leave the International Criminal Court, after the ANC conference voted to pursue this action (it should be noted that the ANC has a comfortable majority in parliament). This comes after refusing to detain Omar Bashir on behalf of the court, due to the charges against him for things such as genocide. Of course this is just a long running conflict between the ICC and various African states, which accuse the ICC of only targeting the crimes of weak African states, while ignoring the crimes of wealthier, predominately Western states.

Full story:

Sauce: https://news.vice.com/article/south-africa-plans-to-leave-the-icc-after-ignoring-order-to-arrest-sudans-president?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Extra sauces:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/11/anc-withdraw-south-africa-international-criminal-court
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11925482/South-Africas-ruling-party-ANC-votes-to-withdraw-from-the-International-Criminal-Court.html

Opinion: I think this is a big mistake, which will only make enforcing international and humanitarian law harder. While there are legitimate concerns as to potential bias in which cases the ICC decides to pursue, it doesn't help that there are a number of powerful countries that refuse to ratify the treaty (the USA among them), or countries in the West that have but have since been revealed to have taken part in a number of human rights abuses since then (especially in regards to extraordinary rendition), which damage its legitimacy and effectiveness. That said, I don't think this is the correct move as it will encourage other states to then ignore the ICC's requests or just simply leave, which will hamper the ability for some justice to be met for the victims of human rights abuses across the globe.

Anyway fellow NSGer's, what say ye?

1)Countries are free to leave and join international organizations. 2)And when the ICC prosecutes Milosevic and ignores Thaci, it's a tad hard for them to be considered a neutral organization. 3)Considering that South Africa wants to play a leading role in Africa, of course their going to think that Africa's opinion is more valid than the ICC's. 4)Does Africa have their own court, like the ECHR in Europe, which, btw, is a lot more sane.

1) I don't think I stated they couldn't. *looks back* Ah gee, look I didn't say that. That doesn't mean it's the right choice.
2) Milosevic wasn't tried at the ICC, he was tried at the ICTY.
3) So...letting people who carried out genocide get away free is more valid than not letting the get away?
4) Yes, but the ICC was never meant to replace existing judicial systems rather it is to complement them and only takes on cases when other courts are unwilling or unable to pursue charges and thus the ICC takes over.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I smell a rat in South Africa.

[Shofercia]

1)Countries are free to leave and join international organizations. 2)And when the ICC prosecutes Milosevic and ignores Thaci, it's a tad hard for them to be considered a neutral organization. 3)Considering that South Africa wants to play a leading role in Africa, of course their going to think that Africa's opinion is more valid than the ICC's. 4)Does Africa have their own court, like the ECHR in Europe, which, btw, is a lot more sane.

1) I don't think I stated they couldn't. *looks back* Ah gee, look I didn't say that. That doesn't mean it's the right choice.
2) Milosevic wasn't tried at the ICC, he was tried at the ICTY.
3) So...letting people who carried out genocide get away free is more valid than not letting the get away?
4) Yes, but the ICC was never meant to replace existing judicial systems rather it is to complement them and only takes on cases when other courts are unwilling or unable to pursue charges and thus the ICC takes over.

1) I was responding to your OP, not your opinion. For instance, in response to "Anyway fellow NSGer's, what say ye?" I stated that I think that Countries are free to leave and join international organizations.

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.

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.

[MERIZoC]

I smell a rat in South Africa.

If it took a shower I'm sure the smell would go away.

[Geilinor]

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.

What exactly is your argument? That trying African killers in the ICC is biased?

[TestIsland]

NOOOOO!!! They are my favorite cricket team!!

Wait... some other ICC? Eh, nevermind.

[Olerand]

They're leaving the ICC over Omar al-Bashir? Hmmm...

That's not worth it, I would say.

[Greed and Death]

NOOOOO!!! They are my favorite cricket team!!

Wait... some other ICC? Eh, nevermind.

They disbanded their cricket team as too white as well.

[Cedoria]

Part of the problem is not that the ICC doesn't pursue Western suspects, but it is that Western governments have been known to refuse to abide by its verdict, and veto calls for it too be recognised.

But this move from South Africa doesn't make a lot of sense I agree. It'll just make it harder for the ICC to pursue war criminals if countries can just leave randomly whenever they don't agree with it.

[Napkiraly]

1) I don't think I stated they couldn't. *looks back* Ah gee, look I didn't say that. That doesn't mean it's the right choice.
2) Milosevic wasn't tried at the ICC, he was tried at the ICTY.
3) So...letting people who carried out genocide get away free is more valid than not letting the get away?
4) Yes, but the ICC was never meant to replace existing judicial systems rather it is to complement them and only takes on cases when other courts are unwilling or unable to pursue charges and thus the ICC takes over.

1) I was responding to your OP, not your opinion. For instance, in response to "Anyway fellow NSGer's, what say ye?" I stated that I think that Countries are free to leave and join international organizations.

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.

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.

1) Which is a pointless statement since no one really argues otherwise. But fair enough.

2) So then why bring it up? They are completely different courts covering different mandates. As for Thaci, if investigators gather enough credible evidence, then yes, he should stand trial. And you don't need to, since I'm quite aware of the biases that exist.

3) The charges are opposed by the AU, so getting him to stand trial in Africa is going to be rather difficult. As it stands the AfCHPR is unable to prosecute al-Bashir due to the AU's own opposition to the ICC's charges. Hence the ICC is the court that needs to handle it unless you can find me an indictment from the AfCHPR. Should Africa try people within their own courts more? Definitely. But with the case of al-Bashir the AU has shown that it wont take that initiative.

4) It's not a kick in the balls when the AU itself opposes the charges against him. In this case yes, Africa needs the international court to achieve justice since their own regional body wont. Not always and hopefully the amount needed reduces in the future.

[Shofercia]

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.

What exactly is your argument? That trying African killers in the ICC is biased?

That the ICC is biased and that Africa should get its own court going. BTW, I think Bashir should be tried, the question is where to try him best, and not let him argue the "it's a political trial" line.

[Shofercia]

1) I was responding to your OP, not your opinion. For instance, in response to "Anyway fellow NSGer's, what say ye?" I stated that I think that Countries are free to leave and join international organizations.

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.

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.

1) Which is a pointless statement since no one really argues otherwise. But fair enough.

2) So then why bring it up? They are completely different courts covering different mandates. As for Thaci, if investigators gather enough credible evidence, then yes, he should stand trial. And you don't need to, since I'm quite aware of the biases that exist.

3) The charges are opposed by the AU, so getting him to stand trial in Africa is going to be rather difficult. As it stands the AfCHPR is unable to prosecute al-Bashir due to the AU's own opposition to the ICC's charges. Hence the ICC is the court that needs to handle it unless you can find me an indictment from the AfCHPR. Should Africa try people within their own courts more? Definitely. But with the case of al-Bashir the AU has shown that it wont take that initiative.

4) It's not a kick in the balls when the AU itself opposes the charges against him. In this case yes, Africa needs the international court to achieve justice since their own regional body wont. Not always and hopefully the amount needed reduces in the future.

Opinions are pointless unless someone argued against them? Lolwut!

You're aware of the bias, but is everyone reading this thread aware of it?

I'll get back to you on 3&4 later on.

[Costa Fierro]

Erm...that makes no sense.

It's the ANC. Always expect unfathomable idiocy.

[Costa Fierro]

Does Africa have their own court, like the ECHR in Europe, which, btw, is a lot more sane.

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.

[Olerand]

Does Africa have their own court, like the ECHR in Europe, which, btw, is a lot more sane.

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.

Well the ECHR in and of itself is non-binding (It cannot nullify or change laws or any such matters), so an African version, I presume, would never be anything more than a glorified façade.

[Napkiraly]

1) Which is a pointless statement since no one really argues otherwise. But fair enough.

2) So then why bring it up? They are completely different courts covering different mandates. As for Thaci, if investigators gather enough credible evidence, then yes, he should stand trial. And you don't need to, since I'm quite aware of the biases that exist.

3) The charges are opposed by the AU, so getting him to stand trial in Africa is going to be rather difficult. As it stands the AfCHPR is unable to prosecute al-Bashir due to the AU's own opposition to the ICC's charges. Hence the ICC is the court that needs to handle it unless you can find me an indictment from the AfCHPR. Should Africa try people within their own courts more? Definitely. But with the case of al-Bashir the AU has shown that it wont take that initiative.

4) It's not a kick in the balls when the AU itself opposes the charges against him. In this case yes, Africa needs the international court to achieve justice since their own regional body wont. Not always and hopefully the amount needed reduces in the future.

Opinions are pointless unless someone argued against them? Lolwut!

You're aware of the bias, but is everyone reading this thread aware of it?

I'll get back to you on 3&4 later on.

I said it was a pointless remark since no one in their right mind thinks otherwise.

Anyone with an inkling of information about the ICC should be aware of the bias criticisms it receives.

Of course.

[Daburuetchi]

Does Africa have their own court, like the ECHR in Europe, which, btw, is a lot more sane.

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.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

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.

Zimbabwe... are you talking about Mugabe?

[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.

Zimbabwe... are you talking about Mugabe?

Yes a man who despite what you think of him won free and fair elections and has actually come close to losing a majority number of seats. Comparing this to Eritrea which has never even held elections is ludicrous