International Criminal Law

Discrepancies between the aspiration to apply ICL indiscriminately and the reality of its application described above drive perceptions of double standards. In this blog post, I will sketch the origins and context that led to double standards in ICL and consider how to differentiate double standards from selectivity and whataboutism. I will argue that recent developments illustrate double standards within the ICL framework. Given that the legitimacy of international criminal justice crucially depends on its impartial application, it remains paramount to work towards unmasking and remedying such double standards in ICL.

This review focuses on Chapters 1 and 7 of the book ‘Witness Protection and Criminal Justice in Africa: Nigeria in International Perspective’ by Suzzie Onyeka Oyakhire. The review reflects on specific aspects adopted in discussing witness protection and the complexities surrounding its practice in the Nigerian context as presented by the author.

Witness Protection and Criminal Justice in Africa: Nigeria in International Perspective’, by Dr Suzzie Onyeka Oyakhire, provides an important contribution to the processes aiming to establish witness protection concepts, legislation, and requisite structures for the Nigerian criminal justice system. As Oyakhire points out the challenges in institutionalising witness protection in Nigeria are abundant. For this reason, solid academic research such as her book, will be essential in assisting law makers in drafting a law that on one hand appropriately regulates how witness protection is applied at different stages of proceedings within the specific Nigerian legal, socio-economical, and cultural context and consciously considers what benefit international and national practices and standards could provide to the process on the other. Oyakhire’s caution against applying a ‘one size fits all approach’ and recommendation to be aware of the risk of importing ideas from abroad without due consideration to the national context is highly relevant. This is essential in trying to ensure that whatever system Nigerian authorities decide to implement, it must first and foremost be appropriately adopted to respond to national needs. Some principles for practical implementation of witness protection measures, such as how to mitigate risks through prevention, deterrence, and avoidance, will be similar regardless of the geographical location but finding the appropriate solution to these practical challenges will need to have a local flavour.

In Nigeria, the relevance of witness protection as a critical aspect of criminal justice administration is increasingly becoming evident. Recent developments in Nigeria such as the prosecution of Boko Haram members for terrorism, prosecution of former government officials and high profile individuals for economic and financial crimes as well as Nnamdi Kanu for treason, brought to the fore the need to clarify the legal and conceptual issues that underlie the framework for protecting witnesses. The concept of witness protection is characterised by ambiguity about its precise meaning, thereby subjecting it to different interpretations. Using the Nigerian case study, my book illustrates the obscurities inherent in the concept of witness protection. These obscurities are discussed around five critical themes: the definition of witness protection; the scope of beneficiaries requiring protection; the nature of crimes necessitating protection; the nature of protective measures and the administrative control of witness protection. The book thus explored the concept of witness protection which is still at an early developmental stage in Nigeria. The book draws from international debates, legal developments, and institutional practices from other jurisdictions as a basis for developing Nigerian efforts in witness protection. It adopts two distinct perspectives: the criminal justice perspectives and human rights perspectives as heuristic tools for analysing the concept and to separate the disparate influences that shape how witness protection is construed. These distinctions are utilised throughout the book as an integrated way of conceptualising the concept of witness protection.

This symposium will seek to foster debate about how double standards are expressed within international law and enhance understanding of how evidence of double standards impacts perceptions and practice. It will feature a wide range of papers that show the many ways that claims and evidence of double standards manifest in different forms of international legal argument, as well as time- and area-specific considerations of how double standards operate in different fields of international law, including from Global South(s) and empirical perspectives. This symposium will bring together scholars and practitioners, from various fields of international law and through divergent theoretical and geographical perspectives.

International criminal practice reflects biases toward high-resource languages, affluent states, and prestigious institutions. Along with its many benefits, digitalization of international criminal evidence has begun to further entrench some of the distance between differentially situated individuals. This post seeks to address the role that digital solidarity should play in the collection and analysis of international criminal evidence. Incorporating aspects of digital solidarity into the field of international criminal law would help address asymmetries in public international law and the digital realm through anchoring digital spaces and connectivity to such spaces in universal human rights and combatting the so-called “digital divide.” Through integrating aspects of digital solidarity into the field of international criminal law, legal practitioners can work to prevent the systematic relegation of already marginalized voices

This symposium’s idea was born out of at least four reflections on that question – the experiences of the four editors. While our experiences are unique, we could agree on one thing: there are junior international legal scholars struggling with various challenges that are inherent to the field. The hierarchies of academic institutions, the political economy of modern universities, geographical location, language, race, gender, and mental health struggles are some of the issues of concern to junior legal researchers, and often even to those advanced in their career. Difficulties emerge not only from structures of oppression and exclusion but also from insufficient familiarity with basic aspects of academic life. All four of us agreed that at the beginning of our careers we had/have little understanding of how to prepare a book proposal, an abstract for an interesting conference, a polite rejection email for an attractive offer, a teaching plan, a justification for chosen methods, and much more.

October 6, 2021

About us