We do not live in a just world. Delivering justice to those who are repressed and have no voice is therefore a noble goal. It is only when justice starts to become a political tool that things start to become nebulous. And the act of delivering justice itself becomes unjust when it is not immune to power asymmetries and is only used against the weaker parties.

We are increasingly witnessing this trend where justice is becoming subservient to a power asymmetric world where the rich and powerful developed countries have lot more possibilities to wield the tool of justice than the poorer and weaker developing countries. For one, developing countries are not able to put economic sanctions on developed countries when they do not meet their binding commitments, say on climate change or trade issues, while developing countries on several occasions have been victims of economic and political sanctions slapped by the developed countries.

Another case to point is the recently issued arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Omar al-Bashir, the sitting president of the largest country in the African continent, Sudan. The International Criminal Court, which is not a part of the United Nations, has issued warrants against 13 people so far, all of whom are either from Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic or Sudan.

It was in 1998 that 120 countries adopted the Rome Statute with the idea of establishing an international court to judge genocides, crimes against humanity and war crimes happening anywhere in the world. Four years later, the ICC became operational in Hague. 108 countries are currently party to the Rome Statute, including roughly half the countries in Africa.

Significantly, within a month of ICC becoming operational, in August 2002, the United States (US) passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), also dubbed as the “Hague Invasion Act” that protects US government officials against criminal prosecution by any international criminal court to which US is not party. It authorises the US President to use all possible means to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained by, or at the request of, the International Criminal Court. It then negotiated the “Article 98” bilateral-immunity agreements with almost 100 countries to further protect US citizens from facing trial at the ICC and threatened suspension of military assistance and US Economic Support Fund (ESF) aid to those countries which do not sign these agreements.

This has rendered the US above the law and beyond the reach of international justice, giving them such rights as Europeans were once given under the "unequal treaties" with other developing countries.

A legitimate question to be asked and that is being asked by some Africans defies answer: why is the ICC focusing mostly on African leaders and African warlords? Several groups and countries, including the African Union (AU), the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and China have expressed strong disappointment over the arrest warrant issued by the ICC.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) headquarted in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, has strongly rejected this move and called it void of sound reasoning. The Secretary General of this 56 member body, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, has rejected the kind of selectivity and double standards applied by the international community in dealing with issues of crimes against humanity and war crimes which directly affects the credibility of the international legal system.

Quest for justice is important. But it is equally important that search for justice not be pursued in a manner that impedes or jeopardises the promotion of peace. Peace takes precedence over justice. It was the objective of ensuring peace that led to the creation of the United Nations and its Preamble clearly states that the United Nations was founded to prevent and resolve international conflicts and help build a culture of peace in the world.

"The African Union’s position is that we support the fight against impunity, we cannot let crime perpetrators go unpunished," according to AU commission chairman Jean Ping. "But we say that peace and justice should not collide, that the need for justice should not override the need for peace."

"Africa is being selectively targeted. What we see is that international justice seems to be applying its fight against impunity only to Africa as if nothing were happening elsewhere -- in Iraq, Gaza, Colombia or in the Caucasus."

"The situation is very serious and very dangerous. At the same time we are not convinced that the decision taken, or the steps taken, within the criminal court have been well considered. That is why we need to consult and take a collective stand in cooperation with the African Union and in consultation with the United Nations," according to Amr Moussa, the Secretary-General of Arab League at a press conference after the emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on 4th March.

China too has expressed its regret and worry over the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court. In a statement available on the foreign ministry's website, Qin Gang, the ministry’s spokesman said, "China opposes any acts that might interfere with the peaceful overall situation of Darfur and Sudan. All parties should think carefully before taking actions."

Sudan is an African country and the stability of Sudan is the responsibility of the AU. This is the message being hammered by Ramadan al-Amamra, the AU Commissioner for Peace and Security.

The African continent is fully capable of achieving its goal of a peaceful, stable, and secure Africa. The 2008 Kenya peace accord is holding strong and was brokered by none other than African leaders Kofi Annan, Graça Machel and Benjamin Mkapa.

Home-grown solutions, and in the case of Africa, attaching that jurisdiction to the African Union, would be a more appropriate way to look for solutions in a power asymmetric world and in ensuring peace in Sudan.