Ever since the International Criminal Court was founded 6 years ago, it has only laid charges against black men.
Whilst Africa certainly has seen a large share of conflict, the past 6 years have also seen many conflicts involving tens of thousands of civilians deaths in regions that include Gaza, Georgia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, not a single non-black person has been charged by the court. Does this represent a willing or subconscious form of racism? Is the court’s decisions on where to act affected by a colonial-era mentality where there are different standards for blacks and non-blacks? Or is the ICC bound by political sensitivities to only act against countries with little political influence?
Discuss.
Re: Is the International Criminal Court racist?
What about the Serbian guys that were charged?
International Court! what International Court?
Nonetheless, not a single non-black person has been charged by the court.
Discuss.
Actually, you're wrong. Number of people from Balkans have been charged including Serb militia leaders and some Serbian generals who were involved in Kosovo war.
What about the Serbian guys that were charged?
That's not the ICC - there's a separate court called the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991
Actually, you're wrong. Number of people from Balkans have been charged including Serb militia leaders and some Serbian generals who were involved in Kosovo war.
Actuallly, you're wrong. As I just posted, the ICC has not laid charges against anyone fromt he Balkans. There is a separate court in existence that has a remit to only prosecute former yugoslav war criminals.
Re: Is the International Criminal Court racist?
why is there a separate court for yougoslavians.
Ever since the International Criminal Court was founded 6 years ago, it has only laid charges against black men.
Whilst Africa certainly has seen a large share of conflict, the past 6 years have also seen many conflicts involving tens of thousands of civilians deaths in regions that include Gaza, Georgia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, not a single non-black person has been charged by the court. Does this represent a willing or subconscious form of racism? Is the court's decisions on where to act affected by a colonial-era mentality where there are different standards for blacks and non-blacks? Or is the ICC bound by political sensitivities to only act against countries with little political influence?
Discuss.
I don't think its Racist
Its just that the bulk of today's genocide occurs in Africa
Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia and Gaza are wars........
Whats happening in Darfur is ethnic cleansing of Sudan of its entire Black population
That has not occurred in either Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia or Gaza
why is there a separate court for yougoslavians.
Because ex-Yugoslavians are "special" .. haha.
Actually, because it got there first. It was set up in the mid-1990s, before the ICC.
You're right, partially. Part of the problem lies in the ideology and jurisdiction of ICC. War crimes and crimes against humanity are very broad terms and the court does little or no attempt to explicitly define these crimes. Plus, I don't think ICC recognizes terrorism as a crime yet, a term used for almost all modern crimes. Cases of civilian deaths in Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan ought to bring state sponsored terrorism in the equation as well, which is always be denied.
Secondly, the court brings political leaders in the box, which is hypothetically a good check on all those who rule. Still, in order to be able to prosecute, ICC needs to bear the risk that the people won't oppose its decision. Majorities would rather have national courts punish their own. The same reason we wouldn't want to hand over zardari. Ultimately, its the sovereignty of National vs. International courts. Now an organization which has absolutely no practical jurisdiction of its own and is dependent upon UNSC to refer cases is bound to malfunction. Come to think of it, i wonder who has the power to legislate in ICC. Anyway, I don't think it racism per say. Just that the Africans are easiest to blame and ICC needs to do something in order to carry on its existence.
Ever since the International Criminal Court was founded 6 years ago, it has only laid charges against black men.
Whilst Africa certainly has seen a large share of conflict, the past 6 years have also seen many conflicts involving tens of thousands of civilians deaths in regions that include Gaza, Georgia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, not a single non-black person has been charged by the court. Does this represent a willing or subconscious form of racism? Is the court's decisions on where to act affected by a colonial-era mentality where there are different standards for blacks and non-blacks? Or is the ICC bound by political sensitivities to only act against countries with little political influence?
Discuss.
source/reference please