QUESTIONING AUTHORITY: A CASE FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT'S PROSECUTION OF THE CURRENT SUDANESE PRESIDENT, OMAR AL-BASHIR

"We are not members of the Rome Protocol, but we assure you that there's no-one above the law." -- Omar al-Bashir1 Since 2003, violence has consumed Darfur, a region in western Sudan. Militant groups, backed by the Sudanese government, have systematically killed thousands of civilians and displaced millions. Despite international outrage, there have been few solutions. The Sudanese government, and in particular its president, Omar al-Bashir, have proved instrumental in the genocide, blocking major efforts by the international community to stop the violence. Attempts by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute key parties in al-Bashir's government have failed.2 But, after three years of investigation by the ICC, at the initial suggestion of the U.N. Security Council (Security Council),3 the prosecutor of the ICC finally applied for an arrest warrant for al-Bashir, which was issued in March 2009.4 This bold move by the ICC has been met with extreme resistance by Sudan, which contends that the ICC has no legal authority to continue its prosecution. The ICC should continue its prosecution of al-Bashir, despite concerns of jurisdiction and head of state immunity, because jurisdictional problems can be reconciled through the Security Council's authority and head of state immunity should not apply in a case where the accused is charged with such serious international offenses.5. Adapted from the source document.