A legitimidade do tribunal penal internacional em questão: caso Darfur

Abstract

The humanitarian conflicts are characterized by the commission of severe offenses and abuses to the human rights committed by individuals who often use the state structure to achieve their goals driven by political, economic and cultural ideologies. However, such abuses gave rise, within the international community, the desire of creating a criminal court that has jurisdiction to judge crimes committed against human rights, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, despite the worldwide phenomenon of mitigation of sovereignty occurred in recent decades, due to geopolitical changes in social, economic, cultural, and to some extent, political features, such as the creation of the European Union, the application of criminal law by an international jurisdiction is limited by the still solid concept of state sovereignty, besides the fact that it involves a multiplicity of moral and cultural issues regarding the objectionable conducts and even the severity of penalties applications. In this context, this paper aims to discuss the issue of the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court, particularly in what concerns to its judicial intervention in Sudan, an African country that is experiencing a violent conflict of ethnic, social and economic roots in the region of Darfur, in the far west of its territory, and that has not ratified the Rome Statute, which established the international court. Therefore, it will be analyzed the geopolitical changes occurred worldwide, particularly after the world wars of the early twentieth century.