Case Studies Flashcards
AFRICAN LEADERS AND THE ICC:
In 2016 the Ivory Coast’s Laurent Gbagbo Became the first former head of state to go on trial before the ICC at the Hague
Three days later the African union supported Sudan is President Omar al-Bashir In his determination to ignore the warrant for his arrest on charges of genocide in Darfur
This demonstrates that the ICC is not a commanding authority states can choose to listen to it or not
AFRICAN LEADERS AND THE ICC:
It also expressed deep concern regarding the wisdom of the continued prosecution of African leaders including Kenya’s deputy president William Ruto, Who faces charges of orchestrating violence after an election eight years ago
AFRICAN LEADERS AND THE ICC:
Kenya’s president Uhuru Kenyatta, Who faced similar charges which the ICC dropped in 2014 is urging African members of the ICC to withdraw from it
This may not happen soon if at all and it is unclear how many
African countries may wish to withdraw from the courts jurisdiction
However the episode makes it harder to promote the notion that no leader who commits atrocities should enjoy impunity anywhere
AFRICAN LEADERS AND THE ICC:
Laurent Gbagbo Having lost a presidential election in 2010 after a decade in office refused to step down and is now accused of encouraging his militias and security forces to commit a string of atrocities in a bloodily vain effort to stay in power
In 2011 he was captured and seven months later sent to the Hague where he has been accused of prompting his henchmen to commit murder rape and other heinous crimes
AFRICAN LEADERS AND THE ICC:
Militiamen Who backed the Ivory Coast’s current president against
Laurent Gbagbo Also committed atrocities but none of them have been indicted
The courts chief prosecutor says she will investigate all sides however the current president of the Ivory Coast seems to Be against the idea of cooperating with her over crimes committed by his allies
Indicates the inequity in IGOs - unfair and inconsistent rulings, they prevent some crimes but ignores others, which reflects how Hedley Bull believed that international organisations would function
AFRICAN LEADERS AND THE ICC:
The court has yet to refute the more damaging charge of bias against Africa
When it began to operate in 2002 African leaders were among its keenest backers, mindful of recent horrors in such places as Rwanda Congo and South Africa under apartheid
Most African governments signed the statue that led to the courts creation
The first nine situations and cases to be put before the court have all been African six were brought to it by the relevant African governments And the latest situation to be investigated by the ICC concerns atrocities committed in georgia during its war with Russia in 2008
AFRICAN LEADERS AND THE ICC:
Furthermore the African leaders who castigate the court for tackling their peers have been less protective of smaller African countries and individuals who fall into the ICCs net
Niger’s government was happy to send a Malian jihadist to the Hague last year
Democratic Republic of Congo has allowed the ICC to send back a warlord, Germain Katanga, To face further charges at home after serving a sentence handed down at the Hague
Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, Is a critic of the ICC and was no doubt content when Dominic Ongwen A leader of the murderous Lord’s resistance Army that has blighted northern
Uganda stood before the court in the Hague in 2016
Powerful states use GOs like the ICC in their own national interest
to protect themselves by getting rid of enemies
AFRICAN LEADERS AND THE ICC:
These examples demonstrate that the ICC is an attempt to make international laws which are sometimes enforced and adhered to, other times not
demonstrates that states are the highest authority - IGOs often have little power or authority to hold states to account for their actions (e.g. Sudan’s president ignores the warrant for his arrest on charges of genocide, states are able to ignore the ICC)
the ICC can bring issues to attention but seems to be ineffective in enforcing them
there is no single commanding authority - the world in anarchical and made up of a society of states
THE IRAQ WAR (2003):
Believing that Iraq still owned and was prepared to use weapons of mass destruction USA and a limited number of allies including the
UK invaded Iraq in 2003
The stated objective was to disarm Iraq and its leader Saddam
Hussein of these weapons
THE IRAQ WAR (2003):
However the USA launched a military action without a clear UN
Security Council resolution
In fact the last resolution before the invasion offered Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations
Russia and France did not support US invasion plans and urged UN weapons inspectors, who reported that Iraq was cooperating with inspections, to be given more time for assessments before any action was taken
THE IRAQ WAR (2003):
A combination of a ground assault and airstrikes brought Saddam
Hussein’s regime to an end within days
Saddam fled but was later captured and tried by an Iraqi special tribunal and executed in 2006
After the invasion UN weapons inspectors concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Irag
THE IRAQ WAR (2003): as an example of realism
The Iraq war can be seen as an example of realism because
1) States of the most powerful actors - the USA ignored the UN went ahead with invasion despite not having a clear resolution,
IGOs Have little power and authority
2) Society of states - No world government or higher authority in place to prevent the US taking matters into their own hands and acting unilaterally
3) Self-help system - USA had to take matters into their own hands and decided to invade as a matter of self interest i.e. to maintain their own security as they feared Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (or to increase their power in the Middle East)
THE IRAQ WAR (2003):
A combination of a ground assault and airstrikes brought Saddam
Hussein’s regime to an end within days
Saddam fled but was later captured and tried by an Iraqi special tribunal and executed in 2006
After the invasion UN weapons inspectors concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
THE IRAQ WAR (2003):
However the USA launched a military action without a clear UN
Security Council resolution
In fact the last resolution before the invasion offered Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations
Russia and France did not support US invasion plans and urged UN weapons inspectors, who reported that Iraq was cooperating with inspections, to be given more time for assessments before any action was taken
RUSSIA’S ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA (2014):
In 2014 Russian backed militia entered the Crimea region in Ukraine and within months Crimea was declared independent
Ukraine form any part of the Soviet union has long been torn between the west and potentially to join the EU and the east where
Russia offered Ukraine very favourable gas supplies
Since the breakup of the Soviet union an agreement with Ukraine allowed Russia to continue to operate from the Sevastopol port in
Crimea’s Black Sea region, Russia’s only warm water port
RUSSIA’S ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA (2014):
Russia did not invade Ukraine with conventional military forces but reports suggested the presence of special forces wearing uniforms without any identifying insignia
Pro-Russian rebel groups then became active in the predominantly ethnically Russian eastern regions of Ukraine, some with Russian government backing
RUSSIA’S ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA (2014):
Russia’s actions in Crimea can be seen as an example of realism because
1) State are the most powerful actors - No higher power to prevent Russians annexation of Crimea
2) States seek to advance their own self interest - Russia wanted secure access to the Sevastopol port in Crimea’s Black Sea region
3) Self-help system - State act to build up their own security and national interest through military power, Russia used various military tactics during its annexation of Crimea
RUSSIA’S ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA (2014):
Russia did not invade Ukraine with conventional military forces but reports suggested the presence of special forces wearing uniforms without any identifying insignia
Pro-Russian rebel groups then became active in the predominantly ethnically Russian eastern regions of Ukraine, some with Russian government backing
example of a proxy war during the Cold War period: Afghanistan
The Soviet union and the USA did not fight each other on the battlefield, both instead engaged in proxy wars using other actors to fight each other
For example in the 1980s the USA armed the Mujahideen In Afghanistan to fight the Soviet union without actually deploying troops of its own
example of a proxy war during the Cold War period: Afghanistan
The Soviet union and the USA did not fight each other on the battlefield, both instead engaged in proxy wars using other actors to fight each other
For example in the 1980s the USA armed the Muiahideen In Afghanistan to fight the Soviet union without actually deploying troops of its own
RUSSIA v USA: military power
Russia is weaker than the USA in terms of troop numbers and naval and air power
It only has one aircraft carrier which is unreliable and needed to be escorted through the English Channel by a tug on standby
The USA is technologically more advanced than Russia and has highly affective drone technology as proved in Afghanistan Iraq
Pakistan and Syria in degrading al-Qaeda
Demonstrates an imbalance between the USA and Russia in which the USA is more powerful
RUSSIA v USA: nuclear warheads
Russia is estimated to have 7300 nuclear warheads
The USA is estimated to have 6970 nuclear warheads
Although arguably this does not make a huge difference as using them would only need to mutually assured destruction
