Argument: ICC is cheaper

Africa bears little of the cost of the ICC – by far its largest contributions come from the European Union, and its member states.

This, coupled with the fact that the ICC is cheaper than the ad hoc tribunals due to economies of scale, means that justice can be delivered to war criminals and those who commit crimes against humanity in an affordable manner – saving resources for helping the victims.

Candidate 1: "Independent nations are capable of trying war crimes themselves.

The ICC is an unnecessary intrusion on national sovereignty. It should be up to each state to determine its own legal system as to how criminal matters should be prosecuted.

The principle of complementarity is no guarantee as it is up to the ICC itself to determine if the state is unable or unwilling, meaning it could take over a case for its own ends."
Candidate 2: "Impunity has occurred in some cases, due to the ICC system not leading to prosecutions, such as in Sri Lanka.

At any rate, the ICC is not needed – African courts can deal with individuals, not a foreign one."
Candidate 3: "Is justice something to be subjected to simple financial parameters?

Even so, what is the ICC cheaper than? It may be cheaper than individual criminal tribunals like the ICTY and ICTR, but that assumes that such tribunals are desirable. It should be left up to individual states to bring action."

Is justice something to be subjected to simple financial parameters?

Even so, what is the ICC cheaper than? It may be cheaper than individual criminal tribunals like the ICTY and ICTR, but that assumes that such tribunals are desirable. It should be left up to individual states to bring action.
