Wrotten By: Alfatih Ziada

Ugandan peace mediators are continuing to complain about the ICC's interference in their efforts to broker a peace treaty, Uganda has offered amnesty to Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebels,but the prospect of indictments by the international court has stopped some top commanders surrendering, along with hundreds of children they have kidnapped during the conflict, mediators said "The International Criminal Court (ICC) just wants to prove itself at the cost of peace, and they seem not to care," leading mediator Betty Bigombe told Reuters.
"I have told the prosecutor that the moment they issue arrest warrants, I will stop the peace process." Like it or not, an investigation here would have serious political consequences and needs a careful handling. As the U.S. has argued all along, the ICC needs to make political as well as legal decisions. But making political decisions deprives the ICC from its legality (if it ever has one).
On the other hand if the Iraqi government has joined the ICC, will that expose US troops to potential investigation and/or prosecution for past and future conduct? The short answer is probably not. There are several reasons. Under the ICC statute, if Iraq is a state party, the Court only has jurisdiction over conduct in Iraqi territory beginning on the date it becomes a party.

The only exception would be if Iraq were to sign a "special declaration" agreeing to the jurisdiction of the Court beginning on July 1, 2002, the date the ICC came into force (Sudan is not a member of Rome Statute, and has never agreed to such a declaration).
The US may be de facto exempt as the result of a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) between it and the Iraqi government. At the time of the hand-over of sovereignty in June 2004, there was some discussion about the terms of such a SOFA, though it was actually never concluded.
If there is a SOFA, under Art. 98(2) of the ICC statute, the Court would not be permitted to proceed with a request for surrendering US troops to the Court; as such a request would require Iraq to violate the terms of an international agreement.
The US may also be protected from prosecution by the terms of the multinational force, which is currently operating in Iraq under Chapter VII authority of the Security Council. Art. 16 of the ICC statute prohibit the Court from proceeding in any matter where the Security Council has requested it (for up to 12 months) not to proceed.

The Security Council has in the past adopted two blanket resolutions (Res. 1422 (2002) and Res. 1487 (2003)) calling on the ICC not to exercise jurisdiction in any UN operation under Chapter VII (law of selectivity to protect Western powers).
The US withdrew its attempt to extend these resolutions last summer after it become clear other permanent members threatened a veto. Art. 17 of the ICC statute require “complementarity.” That means if a local or national investigation or prosecution of the conduct at issue is taking place, the Court is prohibited from exercising its jurisdiction.
The only exception is where the state is “unwilling of unable” to exercise the jurisdiction. The US military investigations into and subsequent prosecutions of abuses at Abu Ghraib under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for example, would likely trigger Art. 17 and halt effective jurisdiction of the ICC.


Despite the fact that Sudan judiciary is competent and its neutrality is never questionable, the ICC issued a warrant arrest against a seated president, and has been spending much news time on Darfur.
The military conflict has been brought on in part by climate change, according to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Drought is forcing nomads in search of water into areas occupied by other claimants. No doubt the conflict is tribal and racial as well.
The entire catastrophe is overseen by a government with few resources other than bullets. The West gives itself and Israel a pass while damning everyone else. Bush, who has violated more human rights than any person alive, is off the hook.
President Bush claims that the enormous destruction and death he has brought to Iraq (that never attacked or threatened to attack the US) are necessary in order for Americans to be safe. If we are accepting such excuses, Al Bashir as the head of state was obliged to try to preserve the state's territorial integrity.
Is al-Bashir supposed to accept secession in the Sudan, Blair would not have accepted secession of Ireland from the UK? How long would al-Bashir last if he partitioned Sudan?

Originally Posted by sudan

yes there is a violence in south
and the governmert of south sudan did not do any things to stop it
that is so sham unfortunately
but in north the situation is different ,and our president is so loved by his people and they said
: we will never let the ICC to controll our life

The recent elections in Sudan may well demonstrate that President Al-Bashir is popular, even loved by many, in North Sudan, although that is disputable. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, were admired and even loved by their followers. The ICC (International Criminal Court) have a massively greater international credibility than Al-Bashir, on whom there is an international arrest warrant outstanding for war crimes committed in Darfur.

International observers report that the elections fell far short of international standards with widespread vote rigging, intimidation and doctored voters lists. The situation was so corrupt that numerous opposition figures withdrew from the election, and several disappeared. In short it was the typical style of election the world is used to seeing run in hopelessly corrupt and violent dictatorships and totalitarian states, such as we have seen in Zimbabwe, Iran and Burma.

It is interesting to note the far greater support enjoyed in the non-fundamental Muslim, semi-independent South Sudan, by President Salva Kir. The concern of anyone seeking national justice, and the prevention of further war crimes with which your beloved President is charged, is that the promised referendum on total independence for South Sudan is permitted to proceed and that the outcome is implemented.

Unfortunately because a number of oil wells exist in South Sudan there is international concern that once again the totalitarian regime in the North will prevent it, as they did last time.

There is a real opportunity for peace to be established in South Sudan, but while ever Al_Bashir or someone like him, is President of the stronger North Sudan, it seems unlikely to be realised.

Sudan, I realise that your threads, which demonstrate a fluency in English lacking in your one reply, are not your own but do try to understand that corrupt, oppressive totalitarian regimes bolstered by extreme religious fundamentalism are unlikely to receive the support of the relatively free nations of the wider international community.