The University of Chicago Undergraduate Law Review (UCULR) is a student-run publication dedicated to the discussion, analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of a variety of legal issues. It aims to provide a better understanding of the law in all of its ambiguities and contradictions in order to reveal how complex compilations of regulatory components can not only serve as reflections of social attitudes towards general ideas of order, agency, consent, power, and choice, but influence the most minute details of everyday life.
FEATURED BLOG POST
Nobody pays attention to the proceedings of the International Criminal Court. It tries very few cases and takes a puzzlingly long time to do even that. Thus it appears that Western media ignore the ICC both because it rarely produces developments to cover, and, when it does, because the developments are legalistic procedures that comprise agonizingly drawn-out judicial processes. But sometimes, just sometimes, the International Criminal Court is part of some controversy that really does warrant attention. Take the ICC’s current trial of Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta. It would seem, at first glance, that there is nothing remarkable here: after all, the ICC usually tries Africans, and the lugubriousness of the trial certainly fits with precedent. These facts miss the point, however, as trying such an individual makes history for both the ICC and for international law in general for two reasons: first, Uhuru Kenyatta is a sitting Head of State, and second, his state, Kenya, has withdrawn itself from the Rome Statute, which established the ICC. Is the accused immune considering these unique circumstances? No, though there is a highly theoretical argument that shows the opposite.