The permanent International criminal Court - the ICC - was long in planning and finally came into existence after the ad hoc Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals (the ICTY and the ICTR) were seen to have had some success. However, problems facing the permanent court that involves itself in continuing conflicts have been seen to be different from those of the ad hoc tribunals that deal with conflicts that had been largely concluded when the tribunals first sat. African countries whose citizens have been brought before the ICC complain of unfairness and bias and that the ICC has become a court for Africa, nowhere else. May they be right? Has the court dealt evenly with different countries or has it shown itself to be vulnerable to political influences? When the ICC becomes involved in continuing conflicts - as it has done in Africa - does it inevitably become involved in the politics of regime change and even in the conflicts themselves? Does the tension between the universal jurisdiction claimed by international criminal courts and the immunity of heads of state from pursuit in courts help or harm when the tension leads to some heads of state remaining in office simply to maintain their immunity from pursuit? Sir Geoffrey Nice's involvement in the Sudan, Kenya and Libya cases may provide insight and indicate how a venture some think doomed could yet be saved.

Support the show