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.