Abstract
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created out of humanity’s darkest moments, conceived as a court that would bring even the most influential to justice for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Created under the Rome Statute of 2002, it bore the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials, a symbol of justice. Nevertheless, for all its purpose, the ICC is still limited by jurisdictional deficits, enforcement shortcomings, and political pressures that undermine its performance.
The ICC’s over-reliance on cooperation from states has turned out to be its weakest point. Prosecutor v. Omar Al-Bashir showcased this weakness when the then-president of Sudan defied arrest even after a warrant had been issued by the international community. The Rohingya Genocide Case was a good example of how non-party states such as Myanmar are outside its jurisdiction. Warrants issue for their lack of execution in some instances, like the Libyan inability to extradite Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.
Beyond such legal hurdles, the ICC suffers from slow proceedings, underfinancing, and charges of selectivity—specifically in Africa. Newer threats such as cyber warfare, terrorism, and ecological devastation fall beyond its scope, rendering it incapable of acting against contemporary atrocities. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba case highlights how process delays can undermine the very justice the ICC attempts to provide.
To regain its mandate, the ICC needs to change. Broadening its jurisdiction, gaining independent financing, enhancing enforcement powers, and protecting victims are essential steps toward making it a more effective force. Only through these changes can the ICC become an actual pillar of international justice—one that no war criminal can evade, and no victim is silenced.
Introduction
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created as the full flowering of an urgent need for justice—a beacon bold enough to bring the world’s worst offenders to account. Crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression which could not be restricted within national boundaries called for a global answer. The ICC is established under the Rome Statute of 2002[1], a system of justice that is greater than the courts and the statutes and is the voice of a global conscience. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan once stated, “The establishment of the ICC is a giant step forward in the march toward universal human rights and the rule of law.”[2] In these words, the ICC’s purpose resounds as a guardian of justice where all else has failed.
The ICC’s existence traces back to the influential precedent of the Nuremberg Trials post-World War II, a time when the world witnessed justice cross national lines to hold humanity’s worst offenders accountable. This legacy fuels the ICC’s mission to step in where national systems falter. It was 2009 when the ICC, in the case of Prosecutor v. Omar Al-Bashir[3], laid bare all its vulnerabilities when the Sudanese president at the time avoided justice despite having a warrant issued against him for crimes against humanity. This shows how the ICC is reliant on cooperation from member states and, hence, is limited. Such limitations stand against the noble mandate of the court, and if global accountability is to be a reality, then the ICC must find ways to amplify its reach.
The ICC represents a justice system beyond courts and statutes and reflects the voice of a global conscience established under the Rome Statute. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan once said, “The ICC is not only a court of law but a court of conscience for the world’s most egregious offenses.”[4] In those words, the purpose of the ICC rings out: it serves as a guardian for justice where all else has failed.
The root traces of the existence of the ICC go way back to the great precedent of the Nuremberg Trials[5] right after the aftermath of World War II; that saw justice cross national boundaries to bring into its fold humanity’s worst offenders. That legacy fuels the ICC’s sense of mission as it steps forward when national systems fail. This is evidenced in the Prosecutor v. Omar Al-Bashir case, which exposed the fragility of the ICC when, in 2009, Sudan’s then-president managed to wriggle from justice despite an arrest warrant issued against him for crimes against humanity. He could travel without restriction because of the lack of cooperation from non-member states-a situation that betrays the reliance of the ICC on the collaboration of member states and its limitations. This forces a court whose noble mandate challenges the ability of global accountability to materialize. As such, the ICC will have to find ways of amplifying its reach.
[1]Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9
[2]U.N. Press Release SG/SM/8361.
[3]Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09, International Criminal Court
[4]U.N. Press Release SG/SM/8361.
[5]Judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal 1946 (1947) 41 AJIL 172