In Patryk I. Labuda's "The African Union's Collective Withdrawal from the ICC: Does Bad Law make for Good Politics?", 

Why has there been an ongoing "conflict" between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the African Union (AU)? 

What critiques have members of the AU levied against the ICC? 

What has the African Union proposed to member states in light of its criticisms? 

Why does Labuda argue that "it is clear from this document that it is the AU that has withdrawn, so to speak"? 

What is collective withdrawal, and how could it present a new norm of customary international law? 

In this case, one international organization created by international law (the AU) confronts another international organization created by international law (the ICC). Is the AU's strategy of confrontation more likely a reflection of the preferences of the most powerful AU member states, or are we seeing an example of international law
having real consequences? https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-african-unions-collective-withdrawal-from-the-icc-does-bad-law-make-for-good-politics/

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The ongoing conflict between the ICC and the AU is rooted in a number of factors including The perception that the ICC is biased against African count... View the full answer