Selective justice within the International Criminal Court and global inequalities

Abstract: African states have recently claimed that international law is transforming into a new form of colonialism and a hegemonic power masquerading as the international rule of law. The International Criminal Court's bias against the Third World African states in correlation to the human right to a fair trial is investigated. The thesis overarching question addresses the Court's selective justice and if the Court promotes global inequalities. Subject areas that the thesis expands on are human rights, selective justice, the Court's African bias and jurisdiction regarding Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Research material has been analysed through the chosen theoretical and methodological frameworks, the rule of law theory, the qualitative text analysis methodology and Third World Approaches to International Law as an analytical tool. The research review outlines existing literature and research about the thesis subject area, that is used as a basis for the research analysis and discussion. The research is limited to the court cases regarding al-Bashir and Thomas Lubanga. Based on the results, the International Criminal Court has to rely on internationally accepted human rights jurisprudence and operate according to the international communities' requirements in order to end impunity. In conclusion, the International Criminal Court is biased towards Africa through selective justice, which violates the human right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the International Criminal Court's bias contributes to global inequalities, however, the International Criminal Court has the potential to create a fairer international law, ensuring the human right to a fair trial.