Claiming Equality: The African Union's Contestation of the Anti-Impunity Norm

By examining the African Union (AU)'s contestation of the International Criminal Court (ICC)'s cases against former or sitting Heads of State (HoS), this article analyzes how the AU's contestation of the anti-impunity norm varies in its normative significance, despite its unified focus on the issue of sovereign immunity. It presents a novel conceptualization of the norm, showing how it is comprised of three principles of equality: individual legal equality under international criminal law; sovereign state equality under international law; and equality of accountability in international criminal justice. Applying this analytical framework to the cases against Al Bashir, Kenyatta, and Gbagbo, the article argues that the norm inherently entails negotiation between divergent claims of equality. Highlighting how the balance between the equality principles results in different normative significance of sovereign immunity, the article shows how contestation of the anti-impunity norm should be seen as contestation among different meanings of the norm itself.