Doubts Linger Over Effectiveness Of The International Criminal Court

Incidentally, some of the most powerful countries like the United States, China, Russia, and India—have never joined the ICC due to ‘domestic compulsions’. There’s also criticism that the ICC focuses too much on African nations

"Fiat justitia ruatcaelum" – Let justice be done, even if the heavens fall.

As wars and violent conflicts continue to abate around the world, including Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and Syria, among other places, we are once again reminded of a very critical question: Can the most powerful people in the world be held responsible when they commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression?

The idea that “no one is above the law” is central to justice, but in international law, it is not always applied equitably, fairly or effectively.

Till the end of 19th century, there were hardly any legal authorities to punish authoritarian rulers. The Hague International Peace Conference of 1899 and 1907, representing the most powerful nations, endeavoured to harmonise laws of war and limit the use of technologically advanced weapons. After the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders, international institutions began prosecuting individuals responsible for crimes against humanity for inhumane actions that may be legal.

As an effective measure, many countries came together to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC) by a multilateral treaty adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome on July 17, 1998. It came into force on July 1, 2002. As of now, 125 states are party to the statue though it received only 60 ratifications. The ICC statues spread in 13 parts with 128 articles. Its goal is to punish individuals who commit the worst kinds of crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, among others.

The ICC only initiates action when a country cannot or will not handle the case on its own. The jurisdiction of the court is complementary to the jurisdiction of domestic courts. Over the years, the ICC has taken some brave steps like issuing an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin for unlawfully moving children from Ukraine to war zones; against Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for razing war crimes in Gaza, and against Omar al-Bashir for his role vis-à-vis mass killing, rape and pillage against civilians in Darfur in Sudan. His trial is under way at ICC headquarters at The Hague.

Incidentally, some of the most powerful countries like the United States, China, Russia, and India—have never joined the ICC due to ‘domestic compulsions’. This means the court has no authority over people from those countries unless the United Nations Security Council refers the case to it. Even when the ICC issues arrest warrants, it depends on other countries to arrest and hand over the suspects. If those countries refuse to cooperate, the suspects remain free.

There’s also criticism that the ICC focuses too much on African nations while ignoring powerful western or allied countries. This creates a feeling of unfairness and selective justice, making some countries distrust the court. On top of that, veto powers in the UN Security Council can block referrals to the ICC.

So, if a powerful country, or its allies, is involved in crimes, they may escape investigation completely. Still, the idea that “the law is the law” (as expressed in the Latin phrase dura lex sed lex) should not be ignored just because it’s difficult to enforce. Justice must be applied equally, no matter how difficult it is or who the accused person is. To make this happen, the international community needs to take some strong steps.

First, more countries—especially powerful ones—should join the Rome Statute. This would give the ICC more authority and show that no one is above the law. Second, the way the UN Security Council works must change. Right now, the five permanent members can veto action, even in serious cases involving war crimes. Limiting or removing that veto power in such situations would make justice more possible.

In addition to strengthening the ICC, regional or hybrid courts can be created. These are courts that mix international and local judges and laws, as seen in Sierra Leone and Cambodia. They can work well when the ICC cannot act. Another important idea is that a new international treaty focused only on crimes against humanity. This treaty, currently being discussed by legal experts, might gain more global support than the current ICC system. Countries should also improve their own courts to allow them to prosecute international crimes. The legal idea of universal jurisdiction means that any country can prosecute crimes like genocide, even if they happened somewhere else.

But none of these ideas will work unless countries truly want to follow the law. International law is often ignored when it goes against political interests.

People who suffer from war crimes deserve justice—real justice, not just promises.

The ICC is actively pursuing several high profile cases, including against Rodigo Duterte, former president of Philippines, accused of crimes against humanity related to extrajudicial killings during his anti-drug campaign; Joseph Kony of Uganda for his role for crimes against humanity; Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz of Mali. The ICC is also conducting its investigation on number of countries like Afghanistan Bangladesh, Myanmar, Libya, Venezuela, and Ukraine but they are having a cascading effect on preservation of human rights around the world.

Recently, Hungary announced its plans to withdraw from the ICC, while the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on ICC staff in response to the arrest warrant against Netanyahu. The popular saying that no one is above the law is not just a slogan. It is a belief that should guide all international actions.

The ICC is not perfect. It faces political pressure, financial limits, and slow processes. But it remains one of the few tools the world has to bring justice across borders. If we truly believe in human rights, fairness, and accountability, we must make sure that even the most powerful leaders are held responsible when they break the law.

(Dr. Yellosa is Associate Professor of Law, Telangana University, Nizamabad; Vaishali is a student of law at Telangana University)