International Justice for Whom – Sovereignty at the Border of Global Accountability

Abstract

The global community entrusts the International Criminal Court with the critical task of ensuring justice for the four core crimes defined in the Rome Statute. However, its enforcement efforts often face resistance, particularly from non-state parties to the Statute, where external intervention is sometimes perceived as an infringement on state sovereignty. Through the theoretical lens of Third World Approaches to International Law, this thesis critically examines the question of who truly benefits from the concept of international justice. It explores the tension between state sovereignty and the enforcement of crimes against humanity, with a focus on Sudan and Libya, by analysing the challenges of applying international law in postcolonial contexts. Rather than framing the resistance to external intervention as an opposition to human rights enforcement, this thesis addresses the issue of sovereignty infringements. It challenges the notion that international law is universally applicable, arguing that it is deeply rooted in Western values and evolved from Western perspectives. In response, this thesis advocates for the development of regional mechanisms that balance state sovereignty with the need for accountability, aligning international law with the diverse realities of these nations.