To understand The International Criminal Court and Africa: One Decade On it is important to comprehend the past as a yardstick for the present and future. In the evolution of international criminal law one decade is hardly a blink in the eye of time. Seen in its proper historical perspective there has been more progress made during the last several decades toward deterring massive inhumanities than in all past centuries of recorded history. The Nuremberg war crimes trials after the second world war took a major step forward in 1946 when war-making, that had previously been hailed a national right, was condemned as a supreme international crime for which the responsible leaders should be held to account in a court of law. That conclusion, affirmed by the UN General Assembly, was reaffirmed when the Statute for a new International Criminal Court (ICC) was overwhelmingly acclaimed in Rome in 1998 and again a dozen years later, by silent consensus at an amendment conference in Kampala, Uganda in 2010.

However, many powerful states were not really willing to surrender what they insisted was their sovereign right to decide for themselves when they would use armed might to protect their perceived national interests. They found fault wiThevery proposed definition that would allow the ICC to exercise its jurisdiction over aggressors. It was finally agreed in Kampala that further consideration of an amendment enabling the ICC to try aggressors should be postponed until some unspecified date no sooner than 2017. No completion date was mentioned. As long as combatants in armed conflicts insist that they alone can judge the morality and legality of their deeds there is no way to end conflicts through the rule of law. Respected independent judicial institutions with clear laws and enforcement powers are essential for a more tranquil world.

The amendments agreed to ‘by consensus’ at Kampala should be ratified. Failing to do so would completely undercut the work done at Kampala. Major substantive differences were submerged since additional ratifications would be mandatory before any amendments would become binding. To be sure, even after other contrived hurdles are surmounted, the existing loopholes, including the right of defendants to ‘opt in or opt out’, diminishes prospects for holding wrongdoers to legal account.