简体中文
South Africa has rebutted criticism from the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguing that it was not obliged to arrest Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir when he attended the African Union Summit in Johannesburg in 2015, as he had diplomatic immunity.
Several African countries including South Africa have
accused the ICC of unfair treatment, threatening to withdraw from the
court.
"The ICC targets African leaders but doesn't
say enough about those like Blair, like Bush and others who've committed
atrocities elsewhere in the world," said Adam Habib, vice chancellor of
Wits University in Johannesburg. "However... that does not absolve the
African leaders."
The ICC on Thursday ruled that South Africa should have
arrested al-Bashir, and rejected its claim that the president had
immunity. The ICC however chose not to refer the case to the United
Nations Security Council. South Africa has five days to appeal the
ruling and is seeking legal advice.
"They could fight
the case. It's unlikely to change the outcome but even if it did, the
ICC hasn't agreed on a sanction on South Africa. There's no sanction on
South Africa. They've made and noted the issue. If I were South Africa
or the South African Government, I would let sleeping dogs lie," said
Habib.
South Africa has however warned that should it be forced
to accept the ruling, it would be grounds for leaving the ICC
immediately.
"It really suggests that South Africa's
moving against a number of the co-operative mechanisms it built into it
post-apartheid arrangements and is going in a different direction. So,
it would cause international actors to look at us quite differently,"
said Peter Draper of Tutwa Consulting.
Should South
Africa leave the ICC, it will raise questions over its stance on human
rights which it has championed since becoming a democratic republic over
20 years ago. It may also cause a flurry of other countries on the
continent to do the same.
