Week Three Blog Post

Sudan government officials are accused of committing acts against humanity in the western region of Sudan called Dafur. Back in the 1980s, North Sudan was predominately composed of Muslims and people of Arab descent, while many Christians and animists lived in South Sudan. Civil war broke out in 1985, when the government wanted to create government rules based on Islam, and the southern part of Sudan opposed the idea. After two decades later, in 2005, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement ended the civil war, after two million deaths and more than four million displaced people, and South Sudan became it’s own independent country in 2011.
In Dafur specifically, the government manipulated the Arab ethnic groups and armed them to brutally massacre African ethnic groups. The armed Arabians were called Janjaweed. The Sudanese government bombed areas where the African ethnic groups lived, and then the armed Arab ethnic groups poisoned water sources and scorched villages. Women of African ethnicity were systematically raped and enslaved.
The ICC investigation opened in 2005, the same year that the civil war ended. Several suspects have been targeted, specifically the Sudanese government officials, leaders of the Janjaweed, and the leaders of the South Sudanese resistance front. These suspects have been charged with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, no arrests have been made so far.
Abyei, Blue Nile, and South Kordofan are three Sundanese states that border South Sudan. These three states were holding referendum in 2011, deciding on whether or not to join the newly formed South Sudan country. However, in May of that year, the Sudanese government invaded Abyei, forcing the United Nations to send peacekeepers to this state. In Blue Nile and South Kordofan, the Sudanese government began to attacking civilians, some target locations are schools, churches, and necessary farmland.
In 2015, the Sudanese government began to bomb Dafur again, and the president, Omar al-Bashir demanded that all United Nations peacekeepers leave Sudan. I believe that an international court has jurisdiction to charge the president of Sudan, Janjaweed militia leaders, and leaders of the South Sudanese resistance front with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In 2015, the Sudanese government demanded United Nations peacekeepers to leave Sudan. The government will not stop killing civilians, and they have not stopped killing people since the 1980s. The ICC has more than enough witnesses and evidence to prosecute these individuals and groups.

One thought on “Week Three Blog Post

  1. I would agree with you that there is enough evidence for the ICC to charge the president Omar al-Bashir, Janjaweed militia leaders, and leaders of the South Sudanese resistance front with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I would also strongly agree and support your argument that the ICC has clear jurisdiction as there have been several countries and ethnic groups involved with this conflict. Unfortunately until the upcoming revisions are made to the 1998 Rome Statue, I don’t think there will be much success with prosecution.

    According to the ICC’s website, in 2017 the ICC “will be empowered to hold leaders accountable who are responsible for the most serious forms of the illegal use of force against other States….including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression”. While it appears upholding international law and holding those accountable who are responsible for the most serious forms of illegal force/crimes against humanity has always been the goal of the ICC, they have limited success in exercising their power because of the 1998 Rome Convention that failed to identify a unified dentition of crime. This has left a loophole that under minds the ICC’s ability to successfully charge individuals in a court of law.

    Again I completely agree that there SHOULD be enough evidence to prosecute individuals for these heinous crimes but because there is such a systematic problem with definition of crime, prosecuting too early would create a strong defense for the individuals charged. If the ICC abstains from charging the individuals until after 2017 when a more clear and concise definition of crime, they will meet very clear criteria for violating the law.


Leave a Reply