Effects of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Judicial Process on State Sovereignty: A Case Study of Kenya

Many African leaders and scholars have held the view that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a threat to the sovereignty of the people of Africa. Kenya went ahead and attempted to withdraw from the Rome Statute when the Office of The Prosecutor began investigations into the post-election violence of 2007-2008. This research sought to understand how the involvement and intervention of the ICC affect the sovereignty of the State by looking at the case of ICC in Kenya. The research was guided by the following questions: What is sovereignty and how is it applied in Kenya? How does the involvement of ICC in the domestic matters of a state affect its decision making role? How did the ICC judicial process affect the sovereignty in Kenya? How can sovereignty be upheld and still perpetrators of the most heinous crimes prosecuted? To answer these questions the researcher employed the qualitative method and used both primary and secondary sources of data. The research relied on liberalism, compliance and new sovereignty theories to conceptualize the study. It was found that the ICC interventions produced both positive and negative effects. On one hand, it worked as a deterrent measure for crimes under the ICC jurisdiction in Kenya while on the other, exposed Kenya to interference by ICC and made Kenya redundant to prosecute her criminals. The research also exposed the misconception by people that sovereignty is solely a matter of the people and state leadership thus concluding that as long as the state exists in a global village, it will never be possible to operate in isolation. It was recommended that government and policy makers should educate the public on the implications of treaties such as the Rome Statute for there to be a good understanding of how it works. Also the ICC should invest in awareness campaigns so that the publics can be educated and appreciate the role that it plays across the globe.