International Criminal Justice Between the Hammer of Human Rights Protection and the Anvil of Selective Justice

Abstract

This study examines international criminal justice in light of the problem of selective justice, focusing on the tension between the declared objective of protecting human rights and the uneven practical application of accountability mechanisms. It aims to clarify the role of international criminal justice in combating impunity and protecting victims, while analyzing how political considerations, Security Council referrals, veto power, and unequal cooperation by states may lead to selective prosecution or selective non-prosecution. The study adopts descriptive and analytical methodologies through examination of relevant international legal texts, conventions, Security Council resolutions, and selected practical applications, particularly the referrals concerning Darfur and Libya and the controversies raised by situations that did not receive comparable treatment. The study concludes that international criminal justice remains an essential mechanism for protecting human rights, but its credibility is weakened when referral and enforcement mechanisms are applied inconsistently. It recommends strengthening the independence of the International Criminal Court, adopting clearer legal criteria for referrals, limiting political influence in situations involving serious international crimes, and promoting transparent cooperation mechanisms that support equal justice rather than selective justice.