In order to try these complex cases, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was formed in 1998 out of the Rome Statute, an international treaty separate from other multinational entities, such as the United Nations. Located in The Hague, Netherlands, charges under the purview of the court include genocide and war crimes, as well as crimes against humanity.

Despite it being a potentially more civilized option for prosecuting war criminals than vengeful post-war tribunals, the court has struggled for legitimacy and access. As an international body, the court cannot violate the sovereignty of any nation. Consequently, it relies on supporting countries or parties to the Rome Statute to extradite those in question, or on the individual in question to cross international borders. Although it can issue warrants, the court cannot enter countries to bring the accused to justice.

Moreover, the ICC cannot press charges unilaterally. In order to issue an arrest warrant, the court must receive referrals from the UN Security Council or State Parties to the Rome Statute. The model for the ICC obviously has flaws—despite over a billion dollars spent building the court, it currently only boasts two convictions from a single conflict in the Congo.  

The court could, however, be on the verge of a third, more important conviction. The trial of Bosco Ntaganda began Wednesday, September 3, two years after he voluntarily surrendered himself to the US Embassy in Kigali, Rwanda.

Nicknamed “The Terminator” because of his ruthless murders, Ntaganda is facing 18 charges, including recruiting child soldiers, raping women soldiers and holding them as sex slaves, and commanding troops that murdered and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. All of this is compounded by the ethnically driven murder of 800 civilians in 2002.

The beginning of the Ntaganda trial, in addition to the heads of state of the Ivory Coast and Kenya appearing before the court, suggests a more powerful, more influential ICC. Bringing Uhuru Kenyatta, President of Kenya, to the court was a major triumph – he was the first sitting head of state to appear before the ICC for any purpose.

Despite the court’s successes on the continent, the African Union (AU) has taken exception to what it perceives as a bias against African states in the cases the court tries. It is true that all nine situations currently being processed by the court are against Africans; however that continental focus could be beneficial if the AU accepted it.

The fact that Africa has recently experienced nine circumstances classified by the ICC as crimes against humanity suggests a trend of instability and violence exists that would benefit from any kind of deterrent. While all regions of the world exhibit violent tendencies from time to time, no region’s violence gets less international attention than Africa. A 2014 report in the Columbia Journalism Review on the lack of Western media coverage of the brutal, quasi-genocidal civil war in the Central African Republic highlights this gap in coverage. The report notes the war – which killed 5,000 and displaced hundreds of thousands more – received less coverage in September 2014 than celebrity stories, including the Oscar Pistorious trial in South Africa. Moreover, the report cites two wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo that have killed more people than any war since World War II, yet never had a single journalist consistently stationed on the front line.

Were the ICC involved in identifying, finding and prosecuting African war criminals, the coverage problem would dissipate as a result of the western actors involved—a wide array of media would profile and report on the conflicts. That coverage in turn leads to attention, attention leads to scrutiny, scrutiny leads to pressure and the right pressure leads to changed behavior.

If this occurred, the ICC would need the authority to violate state sovereignty to bring those accused to The Hague. Currently, those accused of crimes against humanity understand that they have the protection of sovereignty, and as long as sovereignty is a safetynet, they will continue to commit unspeakable atrocities.

Additionally, if the ICC partnered with Interpol, the necessary enforcement would be possible without expanding international bureaucracy. Interpol is the world’s largest international police entity, with 190 member countries cooperating with the organization. As a body working under international law, Interpol has faced similar issues. The two would partner well: the ICC needs a police force to exercise its warrants and Interpol needs a judiciary body to report to.  

Of course, the fear of a world court and police force threatening the sovereignty of individual countries is warranted. And the first criticisms of those world bodies would come from the United States, a country that, out of fear of prosecution, has yet to ratify the ICC charter. The limited scope of the ICC regarding the types of cases it is permitted to try, however, would remain a significant check to its power, preventing it from involving itself in situations better tried in national courts. Most importantly, though, international laws should have the accompanying legal bodies to identify violators and bring them to justice. That is how laws are enforced, and without enforcement laws hold no weight.

No justice system, national or international, represents an active crime deterrent; all courts respond to crimes retroactively. Those who say the ICC is ineffective because it cannot actively deter crime fail to take into account the structure of any traditional justice system. Moreover, those opposed to the ICC fail to appreciate that the fear of prosecution and increased international scrutiny – without sovereignty as a protection – has the potential to make people think twice about their actions while in power. Many of those who commit crimes against humanity are immensely powerful, and therefore answer to no one and fear little reprisal. A more powerful ICC could change that.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Recent geopolitical events in Africa have shed light on an unfortunate trend in Western media: the neglect of substantial African stories. When stories on Africa do make headlines, they are usually the most sensational pieces. These pieces reveal two unfortunate tendencies by the Western media: one, the portrayal of Africa as one geopolitical bloc; two, the portrayal of Africa as little more than a disaster-ridden continent. To learn more about this harmful pattern and its causes, I spoke with Dr. Cheikh Anta Babou, a professor of African history and the history of Islam in Africa at the University of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Babou, a native of Senegal, joined Penn’s history department in 2002 and now teaches courses entitled Africa Before 1800, Decolonization and Africa, Religion and Colonial Rule in Africa, and Islam and Society in America. His research focuses on mystical Islam in West Africa, as well as the new African diaspora. Dr. Babou’s articles have appeared in African Affairs, Journal of African History, International Journal of African Historical Studies, Journal of Religion in Africa, Africa Today and other scholarly journals in the US and France.

GLIMPSE: It seems that Western news outlets cover only the most sensational stories out of Africa. Boko Haram, Ebola and Somalian pirates make mainstream news in the US, while things such as the Nigerian elections and the Central African Republic crisis aren’t covered. Why does this pattern exist? 

BABOU: The coverage of Africa is crisis-driven. This pattern has roots in the past, specifically in the tradition of Africa’s being perceived by Westerners as the bottom of the ladder. You also have to deal with the problem that always exists with the media, which is that news outlets publish stories that people want to read. There simply isn’t enough demand in the US for African stories. When people think about Africa, they think of crisis, war and disease. That’s what comes to mind when you hear the word “Africa”. There are too many good things happening that you don’t hear about.

GLIMPSE: What are some recent examples?

BABOU: There are two things that come to mind. First, you have the elections that happened two weeks ago [January 20] in Zambia. Michael Sata [the incumbent president]died in office and was replaced via a peaceful and democratic election. The election was tight and the winning candidate [Edgar Lungu] won by a small margin. Power was transferred peacefully. The second example isn’t as recent: in 2007, Senegal also had a successful multi-party election. Again, these events don’t receive wide publication as do elections in European countries.

GLIMPSE: It seems that the success of the democratic process is something we take for granted in the US.

BABOU: It is. In Burkina Faso last year, the president [Blaise Compaoré] tried to manipulate the constitution and run for a third term. The people rose up and protested throughout the country, putting so much pressure on him that he was forced to resign. In the Republic of Congo, the same thing just happened. [President] Joseph Kabila tried to amend the constitution to consolidate his own power, and protests also ensued across the country. These were great moments for Africa, great moments for democracy. Africans took control of their own destiny in these countries and didn’t call on Europeans for help. They took charge and democracy happened the way it’s supposed to. But again, these are stories that you don’t hear about in the US.

GLIMPSE: What about Africa’s growing middle class? That issue seems to be covered in the West.

BABOU: Sometimes you’ll hear from the business world or the academic world that Africa is experiencing economic change or economic progress. There is a theory that Africa is the world’s next great frontier. The growing middle class of economically mobile Africans, the increasing GDP of African nations, the anti-corruption efforts of governments and an occasional economic referendum—these are all things that represent change and movement in Africa. But when an African government bolsters its economy or develops its infrastructure, American news outlets do not find an interesting story. As I said before, people are interested in the unusual parts of Africa—the parts that scream “not us” to the Western world.

GLIMPSE: Some of the improvements that you listed are truly pivotal for African countries. 

BABOU: Yes, and the best thing about it is that these changes are happening not because former colonial powers are willing them, but because the African people are willing them. Even compared to the US, this growth is superior. In the US, we still have the issue of the 1% and the 99%. There’s no movement like there used to be. In Africa, though, there is popular demand for these things. More people are paying attention to how their tax money is used and they’re responding if that money isn’t being used appropriately.

GLIMPSE: What other issues do you think should receive more Western coverage?

BABOU: The World Cup captures the attention of people around the world every four years, but few people outside of Africa follow the continent’s major soccer tournament, the Africa Cup of Nations. The Cup, which is going on right now, is held every two years and has become very popular. The youth are mobilized because of it. Similar to the World Cup, countries that haven’t been able to make economic or political inroads can do well in the tournament. The special thing about this year’s cup is that even countries that were engulfed in the Ebola crisis are participating. Guinea, for example, has been plagued by Ebola – almost 2,000 people have died – but still sent a team to the Cup. The entire continent is mobilized.

GLIMPSE: What can we as journalists do to increase news coverage of Africa in the US?

BABOU: That’s a tough change to bring about. You can’t forget that news making is a business; it’s about making money. One thing I’d like to see more news outlets do is bring on more African correspondents. I was just reading an editorial piece in the New York Times responding to many people’s concerns about coverage of Boko Haram. When this year’s unfortunate events in France took place, the Western media responded with a huge amount of coverage. Around the same time, Boko Haram killed an estimated 2,000 people in Nigeria and the Western media gave it minimal coverage. Many readers expressed their frustration with this inequality, and the editor responded by explaining that the Times has only one correspondent for all of West Africa. If you have only one person trying to cover that large a region, where so much is happening, how can you expect to cover important issues?

GLIMPSE: What sources of news do you follow for coverage of important African issues?

BABOU: Unfortunately, to receive good news about Africa, you have to go through former colonial outlets. Radio France Internationale and BBC do a good job. BBC in particular has reporters on the ground, people from Africa, who report almost every day. It’s contextual news. Al Jazeera also does a good job, much better than CNN, whose coverage of Africa is superficial. I don’t even think that CNN has a correspondent physically in Africa—this person might fly from Europe and spend 48 hours in Africa when something “newsworthy” happens. Former colonial powers still have a stake through European expats living in Africa. These people are highly interested in what’s going on and often contribute to good coverage like BBC’s.

GLIMPSE: It probably doesn’t surprise you that CNN still hasn’t published a major story about the ceasefire in South Sudan, even though it’s been over 24 hours [February 2]. 

BABOU: You will rarely find an African piece of news among the first stories of any major news outlet in the US.

GLIMPSE: Unless it’s Ebola.

BABOU: Exactly. Ebola does have to be part of the story, though. When it was incubating in Guinea, it wasn’t covered. But when an American aid worker got infected, it became an American story and people talked about it and worked themselves into a frenzy. All the while, people in Guinea were dying. Entire villages were being wiped out but no one was talking about it. Once the aid worker was cured and the scare on US soil died down, the coverage stopped entirely.

GLIMPSE: Liberia just got the figure for new confirmed cases per week under 100, but the American media didn’t circulate that story either.

BABOU: Mali, Nigeria and Senegal have also been successful in stopping the spread of the disease. They contained it, but you don’t hear about those successful stories. You only hear about the cases where it’s running amok. That’s just what people in the West too often associate with Africa – things going wrong. That’s the heart of the problem. When there’s good news in Africa, it’s just not interesting to people.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Explaining The Kivu Conflict from Glimpse From the Globe on Vimeo.