Welcome to "The Open Court"
The Open Court is a public law journal dedicated to sophisticated legal discourse and judicial analysis for the modern age.
Does politics prevent the ICC from delivering justice in modern conflicts?
By Keerthana Kamish
An exploration of how state sovereignty and political realities limit the International Criminal Court’s ability to deliver justice in modern conflicts.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a global court that prosecutes individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity when national courts cannot or will not act. The ICC works to promote international law by using its main set of rules, the Rome Statute which has been in effect from July 1 2002, to set up a clear legal framework. However, these rules are often undermined by global politics and individuals with supreme authority, asking the question as to whether the ICC has any power to enforce justice in the modern day.
"The pursuit of justice is often at odds with the demands of peace and diplomacy. The ICC, while legally independent, remains materially dependent on the very states it may seek to investigate."
The ICC has worked to bring justice to several areas of the world and successfully convicted many individuals responsible for war crimes. For example, the first conviction of the ICC was Thomas Lubanga Dyilo in 2012 for the recruitment and use of child soldiers, leading to a sentence of 14 years in prison. Following this example from the Democratic Republic of Congo, many states such as Germany, France, Argentina, and Mali also actively support the actions of the ICC, promoting its authority in international law.
Despite these successes, one of the main reasons why the ICC is limited in its power is because of its reliance on state co-operation for its rulings to carry forward. As can be said for all international law, the authorities may only be enforced when the state cooperates. A clear example of this is the ICC’s arrest warrant on the 17th of March 2023 against Vladimir Putin in relation to alleged war crimes during the Russia-Ukraine War, which legal scholar Jeremy Julian Sarkin (2023) wrote “As Putin is unlikely to be arrested in Russia, the only way that he may be arrested and surrendered to the Court is if he travels to another state”. Although the ICC wanted him to be arrested and brought to The Hague (where trials and hearings of the ICC take place), the Russian government said that they did not recognise the court. They refused to hand over Putin, meaning the ICC cannot enforce the warrant. This illustrates how politics intersects the authority of the ICC, limiting enforcement capacity as its rulings become more suggestive rather than enforceable. The inability of the ICC highlights how state sovereignty can protect leaders from being prosecuted, revealing the political barrier constricting the ICC’s success.
"If the law is to be respected, it must be applied equally. When politics decides the scope of the law, justice becomes a tool of the powerful rather than a shield for the victims."
Therefore, although the ICC establishes needed international accountability and allows governments to be held responsible for their actions, it is limited by state cooperation, political reality, and the sovereignty of powerful nations.
References
Sarkin, J. J. (2023). Will the International Criminal Court (icc) Be Able to Secure the Arrest of Vladimir Putin When He Travels?: Understanding State Cooperation Through Other icc Non-Arrest Cases Against Malawi, Chad, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Djibouti, Uganda, and Jordan. International Human Rights Law Review, 12(1), 26-68. https://doi.org/10.1163/22131035-12010005
Keerthana Kamish is a student contributor to The Open Court, focusing on international criminal law and global justice.