Abstract:
The International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant of 4 March 2009 against Omar Hassan Al Bashir made the president of Sudan the first seated president to be indicted by the ICC in history. The ICC held Al Bashir accountable for crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes committed in the Darfur region. This case study is examined to highlight how state sovereignty is changing in today’s globalized world, and to underscore the role played by international institutions in domestic politics. The thesis examines the role of the ICC in the prosecution of Al Bashir from the perspective of the realist/internationalist debate. It debates the legality of the arrest warrant given that Sudan is not a party state to the ICC and that Al Bashir is a seated president. The thesis then analyzes United Nation Security Council Resolution 1593 that transferred Darfur’s case to the ICC, UN Chapter VII, the Rome Statute, the Geneva Convention on Genocide, and the Vienna Convention to make the case against the immunity of a seated president. The responses to the ICC indictment by Sudan as well as international and regional actors, namely United States of America, Russia, China, the European Union (EU), the African Union (AU) and the League of Arab States (LAS) are also observed briefly. The thesis closes by arguing that that there can be no peace in Sudan without indicting Al Bashir. Peace and reconciliation cannot be achieved without justice.
