International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Influencing State Sovereignity In Kenya

ABSTRACT

The international criminal court statute pledges that most serious crimes of concern to

international community must not go unpunished. The novel mechanism to exert

jurisdiction over state parties to the treaty intends to enforce international law to

protect human rights. The ICC is a reflection of changing perceptions of how the rule

of law relates to larger problems of global inequality. The court has been embroiled in

criticism that it focuses on criminal cases in Africa and particularly targeting African

Leaders. The Kenyan government challenged the courts intervention in the crimes

committed in the country during 2007-2008 post-election violence. It is argued that

the courts legal prosecutions in African countries could impede political solutions to

conflicts and also negate the most sought opportunities for negotiated settlement of

disputes hence abrogating the independence of member states in promoting the rule of

law on their own as sovereign states. The general objective of this study was to assess

the influence of ICC jurisdiction on state sovereignty in Kenya. Specific objectives

were to examine the nexus between International criminal court and state sovereignty

in Kenya, examine the effects of ICC jurisdiction on national interests in Kenya,

evaluate ICC jurisdiction on State Responsibility to protect (R to P) in Kenya, and

assess the ICC jurisdiction and State treaty obligations in Kenya. The study was

guided by theoretical underpinnings as espoused in the theories of Realism and

constructivism on the state in the international system. The study used descriptive

research design and exploratory research design to explore the variables and provided

an opportunity for the researcher to collect systematic information. The study site

included Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru, Eldoret, Kisumu, Kakamega, Kericho,

Bungoma, Laikipia, Kajiado, Kisii and Machakos counties. The study used stratified

sampling, purposive sampling and random sampling. Purposive sampling was used to

select Key informants in state law office ,ministry of interior coordination ,ministry

of foreign affairs ,office of the president ,judiciary, immigration, foreign embassies

and county administration . This selection picked out participants with immense

experience, expertise and knowledge of international criminal court jurisdiction and

0state sovereignty Stratified sampling was used to ensure that the target population is

divided into different strata and each stratum is represented in the sample. Stratified

random sampling was used for university students, lecturers/ professionals,

government and county officials, the national assembly, the senate, the business

communities and civilian population. The study sampled a total of 171 respondents.

Findings of this study indicated that international criminal court jurisdiction influence

on state sovereignty is uncontestable; states cede some of their powers to the Hague

based court through Treaty obligations. The study recommended that whereas

International legal order fathoms justice there is need for states cooperation to

enhance and safeguard international peace and security. A paradigm shift was

recommended for states not only to cooperate but also develop comprehensive

programs for restorative justice by strengthening local legislation as opposed to

real politick. The overall conclusion of the study was grounded on the general

objective. In as much as states are major players in international relations in the guise

of sovereignty, the undisputed authority of statehood is not the preserve of an

individual state rather it is subject to legalization order of international institutions

that assert meaning to hegemonic regimes in international relations. It is in this breath

that the impact of international criminal court jurisdiction on sovereign states is

undoubtedly introgenious, dialectic and yet profane in Kenya.