This paper critically analyzes the concept of legitimacy as it applies to international criminal law. Using the referral of the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (icc) – and the resultant disagreement between Sudan, the African Union, and the icc – as an entry point, it examines the discourse about the referral as a contest of legitimacy. After placing this specific example in the context of theories of legitimacy, it argues that there are no objective criteria for determining the legitimacy of an international criminal tribunal. Legitimacy as a concrete concept is best understood as a Kantian antinomy – an unanswerable question that borders on the metaphysical. Yet this indeterminacy can be turned to the advantage of the critical theorist, offering pragmatic, normative, and pluralist alternatives for the reconstitution of international criminal tribunals such as the icc.

A pattern of affording impunity to local power brokers throughout Africa pervades the application of international criminal law (ICL) in Africa. The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into Uganda is a notorious but representative example, although similar analyses can be made of the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Libya. In Uganda, only members of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) have been indicted for international crimes, even though the United Nations, international human rights groups, and local NGOs have documented years of abuses perpetrated by government troops and local auxiliary units, often against the same populations victimized by the LRA. The ICC is thereby implicated in the power structures and political arrangements of a repressive state that both combats the LRA and often brutalizes the civilian populations of northern Uganda. Inserting itself into Uganda, the ICC becomes a partisan player in the endgame of a civil war that extends back over a generation, and is itself rooted in ethnic and tribal animosities cultivated through 19th century Euro-colonial benedictions of favor. Here, the ICC and the war it adjudicates become surprising bedfellows, repurposed by local elites for the consolidation of domestic power.

International criminal law ("ICL") is legally plural, not a single unified body of norms. As a whole, trials for international crimes involve a complex dance between international and domestic criminal law, the specificities of which vary markedly from one forum to the next. To date, many excellent scholars have suggested that the resulting doctrinal diversity in ICL should be tolerated and managed under the banner of Legal Pluralism. To our minds, these scholars omit a piece of the puzzle * This version of the article is longer than the shorter version we have published with the American Journal of Comparative Law. This longer version includes a fourth part focused on criminal law procedure. In this additional part, we set out the eclectic nature of Argentine criminal procedure as a null hypothesis, since it shows evidence of a congruence between criminal law doctrine and surrounding social values that acts as an exception to the trend we identify in our other examples. We then qualify this Argentine counterexample by discussing the history of employing divergent criminal procedure in post-WWI trials to show instances when ICL must adopt a unified standard for functional reasons. In this longer version, we also weave the insights from these two examples of criminal procedure throughout the remainder of the piece.

No abstract

No abstract