Some Legal Issues Concerning the ICC-AU ‘Crisis’

Nathanael Tilahun

Research output: Other contribution


I this piece I discuss three important (loosely interrelated) points. First, I dispel the suggestion that the ICC is primarily funded by powerful states (read: the US) and to that extent serves as an instrument of their desires. Second, I will argue that powerful states would still be able to shield themselves from the ICC by using the powers of the Security Council, even if the Statute of the ICC had not bestowed upon the Security Council powers to defer cases from consideration by the ICC. Thirdly, I present two possible interpretations to resolve the apparent contradiction between article 27 (waiver of immunity) and article 98 (requirement of consent in waiving immunity) of the ICC Statute that Abreha pointed at. I will end my discussion with a rather pessimistic but practicable note (as opposed to the idealist but paralyzing suggestions we often hear) on the way forward regarding the ICC-AU ‘crisis’.
Original languageEnglish
TypeBlog entry for Abyssinia Law journal
Media of output online
PublisherAbyssinia Law
Publication statusPublished - 15 Jun 2013
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Some Legal Issues Concerning the ICC-AU ‘Crisis’'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this