Justice Delayed is not only Justice Denied but Justice Manipulated - Navanethem Pillay

INTRODUCTION

The ICC is the International Criminal Court and is based in The Hague, Netherlands., established in 2002, is a crucial institution in the pursuit of international justice, aiming to hold perpetrators accountable for heinous crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It is a court that is not designed to deal with disputes between states (like the ICJ), but instead deals with international criminal charges against individuals. The crimes that it tries are the four most serious breaches of international law: Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes and The Crime of Aggression.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has the authority to prosecute individuals who are responsible for major international crimes in situations where national authorities are either unwilling or unable to do so. As a result of the complementary nature of the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction, the principle of accountability is strengthened, and it is ensured that perpetrators do not avoid punishment solely due to weaknesses in domestic

legal systems or political reasons. The Court acts according to the concept of complementarity, which means that it only steps in when national legal systems either fail to handle crimes that occur within their jurisdiction or are unwilling to file criminal charges against those who commit these crimes. As a result of this concept, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is able to fulfill its function as a court of last resort, which strengthens the legitimacy of its actions and strengthens the rule of law on both the national and international levels.

However, despite its efforts, the ICC has faced numerous challenges and criticisms, including concerns over its jurisdictional limitations, investigative and prosecutorial strategies, and treatment of victims and witnesses. The ICC's ability to effectively investigate and prosecute international crimes is often hindered by a range of challenges, including the lack of cooperation from states, the difficulty of gathering evidence, and the complexity of international criminal law. Despite these challenges, the ICC remains a vital institution in the pursuit of international justice, and its work has contributed significantly to the development of international criminal law and the promotion of accountability for international crimes.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: OBJECTIVES AND MANDATE

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) deals with the definition of Genocide

For the purpose of this Statute, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) deals with the definition of Crimes against humanity

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

• Murder;
• Extermination;
• Enslavement;
• Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
• Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• Torture;
• Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• Persecution on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or gender grounds, or on grounds of sexual orientation, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
• Enforced disappearance of persons;
• The crime of apartheid;
• Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) defines War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, war crimes means:

a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

• Wilful killing;
• Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
• Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
• Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
• Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
• Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
• Taking hostages .

The Crime of aggression is defined in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime of aggression" means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, "act of aggression" means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13, paragraph (b), and article 15, subject to the provisions of this article.

THE FORMATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC)

The first attempt to institutionalize an international criminal court goes back to the first Hague Convention in 1899. Nevertheless, the project never came into effect, due to the states' refusal to surrender a part of their sovereignty to an external institution .

1919: The Paris Peace Conference

The idea of an international tribunal to prosecute individuals for international crimes was first discussed at the Paris Peace Conference after World War I. This conference laid the groundwork for the modern international justice system. The notion of an international criminal court was first established in the aftermath of the First World War as a mechanism to try those who may be responsible for war crimes, like the German Kaiser. However, no permanent body was established before the end of the Second World War.

1945: The End of World War II

After World War II, the Allied powers established the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals to prosecute Axis leaders for war crimes. These tribunals set a precedent for international prosecution of individuals for international crimes. After the Second World War it was clear that the surviving leaders of Germany and Japan would have to face a formal trial. As such, two tribunals were established:

The International Military Tribunal (IMT)

This tried suspected German War Criminals between November 1945 and October 1946.

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) – This tried suspected Japanese War Criminals between May 1946 and November 1948. The first set of trials took place in Nuremberg, Germany, and saw 12 Nazi Leaders sentenced to death.

• 1948: The United Nations General Assembly -The United Nations General Assembly recognized the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities. This resolution marked the beginning of efforts to establish a permanent international criminal court.
• 1989: Revival of the Idea- The Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, A. N. R. Robinson, revived the idea of a permanent international criminal court. This led to renewed efforts to establish the ICC.
• 1994: The International Law Commission's Draft Statute- The International Law Commission presented its final draft statute for the ICC to the General Assembly. This draft statute provided the foundation for the Rome Statute.
• 1998: The Rome Statute- The Rome Statute, the ICC's founding treaty, was adopted on July 17, 1998. The treaty established the ICC's jurisdiction, structure, and functions. The treaty adopted during that conference is known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
• 2002: Entry into Force- The Rome Statute entered into force on July 1, 2002, after ratification by 60 countries. This marked the official establishment of the ICC. The ICC was a remarkable achievement because it was the first permanent international criminal court legally empowered to try individuals reasonably suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. This historical background is crucial in making sense of the current state and challenges that international criminal law face in prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity.
• 2003: Election of Judges- The first bench of 18 judges was elected in 2003. These judges came from diverse backgrounds and had expertise in international law.

THE FUNCTIONING AND OPERATIONS OF ICC’S

The ICC works on a principle called complementarity. This means that it will only investigate and consider prosecuting cases if this is not, or cannot, be done by the national government in which the alleged crime took place. This means that the ICC is respecting the sovereignty of states to deal with issues within their own borders, at least in the first instance.

Cases can be referred to the the ICC in three ways:

1. They can be referred by the UN Security Council. For example, in 2005 the UN Security Council passed resolution 1593 which referred alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur to the ICC Prosecutor.
2. They can be referred by member states. For example, in 2014 the Central African Republic referred the violence taking place in the country to the ICC.
3. They can be initiated by the ICC Prosecutor. For example, in 2019 the ICC Prosecutor announced they were carrying out a preliminary investigation into claims that thousands of people had been killed by the government in the Philippines in its ‘war on drugs’.

The ICC will then investigate the alleged crime and gather as much evidence as possible. When prosecutors believe they have enough evidence to prosecute, they will apply to the ICC to issue an arrest warrant. At this point, all member countries have a legal duty to arrest and handover a suspect who is within their jurisdiction. For example, Dominic Ongwen a suspected Uganda War Criminal, was arrested in the Central African Republic in 2015, ten years after his indictment in 2005.

CASES TRIED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Since its inception 31 cases have been bought before the Court. There have been 10 convictions, 4 acquittals and 17 cases are ongoing. The court has issued 38 arrest warrants and 21 people have been detained in the ICC’s detention centre, whilst 15 remain at large .

Some of the key convictions include:

• Thomas Lubanga Dyilo – Found guilty of war crimes for enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 to participate in hostilities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
• Germain Katanga – Found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in an attack on a village in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in which over 200 people were killed.

Some of the key acquittals include:

• Laurent Gbagbo – Acquitted of crimes against humanity charges related to the 2010-2011 post-election violence in Cote d’Ivoire.
• Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui – Acquitted of war crimes and crimes against humanity charges related to an attack on a village in the Democratic public of Congo in 2003.

Some of those suspects at large include:

• Joseph Kony – Leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, indicted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He is believed to be hiding in the Central African Republic.
• Omar Al-Bashir – Former President of Sudan, indicted on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide related to the conflict in Darfur. Al-Bashir is believed to still be in Sudan.

Some of the court’s high-profile indictments:

Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, and Mohammed Deif. In November 2024, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif on charges including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court cited Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip. (The ICC prosecutor originally sought warrants for two other Hamas officials who were subsequently killed in the conflict.) The court wrote in its decision that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant “intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population of Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival,” while Deif is responsible for “murder; extermination; torture; and rape and other forms of sexual violence. ” Israeli officials have criticized the allegations as antisemitic, and Israeli President Isaac Herzog said the warrants turned “the very system of justice into a human shield for Hamas’s crimes against humanity.” Israel—and the United States, where Netanyahu often travels—are not members of the ICC, meaning neither one is obligated to arrest him if he is within their boundaries.

Muammar al-Qaddafi. The Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the ICC in 2011, based on allegations that the Libyan leader and other individuals were responsible for the killing of unarmed civilians during Arab Spring protests. In June of that year the court issued arrest warrants for Qaddafi, as well as for his son and his brother-in-law, but he went into hiding and was killed before he could be apprehended. Qaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, remains a fugitive.

Omar al-Bashir. The first sitting president to be indicted by the ICC, Bashir is sought on allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Sudan’s Darfur region. He is accused of planning mass killings and deportations of members of several ethnic groups. Bashir avoided arrest by traveling abroad only with assurances from friendly foreign leaders that they would not turn him over. In April 2019, the Sudanese military ousted Bashir following months of anti-government protests and placed him under arrest. An ICC delegation visited the country in February 2021 to discuss cooperation with the transitional government, but it remains unclear whether Sudanese authorities will extradite Bashir.

Uhuru Kenyatta. In 2010, the ICC opened an investigation into violence that killed more than one thousand people following Kenya’s 2007 presidential election. It eventually named Kenyatta and five other major political figures as suspects of crimes against humanity. The investigation continued as Kenyatta won the presidency in 2013, with fellow ICC suspect William Ruto as his running mate. The court dropped the charges against Kenyatta the following year and those against Ruto in 2016, with the prosecutor’s office claiming that the Kenyan government was uncooperative and that witness tampering had undermined the case. In 2023, the ICC finally halted the thirteen-year investigation after failing to produce any convictions .

STRENGTH: PRINCIPLES AND DEMONSTRATION OF ICC

There are certain principles and provisions of Rome statute which provides the ICC a sense of strength in its procedure and several examples in the past can be drawn from its works as below mentioned which makes it a quite unique and permanent institution in the arena of international criminal law and makes it different from the other institutions too and demonstrated several times.

1. The ICC's focus on individual accountability is based on the principle that individuals, rather than states, are responsible for committing international crimes. This approach recognizes that international crimes are often committed by individuals or groups of individuals, rather than by states as a whole. By holding individuals accountable, the ICC aims to ensure that those responsible for atrocities are brought to justice, rather than allowing them to hide behind the veil of state sovereignty. The ICC's ability to hold individuals accountable is demonstrated through its investigations and prosecutions. For example, the ICC has prosecuted Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Sierra Leone Civil War.
2. The Complementarity Principle of the ICC allows national courts to prosecute serious crimes first, with the ICC stepping in only if the country is unwilling or unable to do so. This was evident in the case of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. After the Libyan Civil War, he faced charges of crimes against humanity for his role in suppressing anti-government protests. Libya initially sought to prosecute him domestically, and the ICC deferred, respecting national jurisdiction under the complementarity principle. However, concerns arose regarding Libya's judicial capacity and fairness, including issues of due process and security instability. As Libya struggled to conduct a fair and credible trial, the ICC maintained jurisdiction, highlighting its role as a safeguard when national systems fail to deliver justice.
3. The Independence and Impartiality of the ICC are fundamental to its credibility, ensuring justice is administered without political influence or bias. This was exemplified in the case of Bosco Ntaganda, a Congolese warlord known as the "Terminator," who was convicted by the ICC in 2019 for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, and child soldier recruitment in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Despite his influence as a powerful military leader and his past alliances with political figures, the ICC maintained an unbiased approach, prosecuting him solely based on legal evidence.
4. The Comprehensive Structure of the ICC ensures effective coordination and administration of justice through its well-defined branches, including the Office of the Prosecutor, Chambers, and Registry. In Jean-Pierre Bemba's case (Central African Republic), this structure facilitated thorough investigation, fair trial procedures, and robust victim and witness protection, demonstrating the ICC's organized and systematic approach to international justice. Global Support and Legitimacy bolster the ICC’s authority, enabling it to exercise jurisdiction beyond borders. In 2005, the Court issued arrest warrants against Joseph Kony and Lord's Resistance Army leaders, with cooperation from Uganda and other African states, highlighting its global recognition and influence in upholding international law.
5. The ICC’s emphasis on Victim Participation and Protection enhances its credibility by giving victims a voice in the judicial process. In the Thomas Lubanga case (DR Congo), over 120 victims actively participated, marking a historic moment in international justice and underlining the ICC's commitment to human rights and victim advocacy. Transparency and Fair Trials are core strengths that maintain public trust in the ICC. In Laurent Gbagbo’s (Côte d'Ivoire) trial, the ICC ensured his right to defense, cross-examination, and public proceedings, thereby reinforcing the presumption of innocence and demonstrating the Court’s dedication to impartial and transparent justice.
6. The ICC’s Comprehensive Legal Framework - allows it to adapt to evolving international crimes. This was evident in Al Mahdi's case (Mali), where the ICC prosecuted cultural destruction as a war crime for the first time, showcasing its legal versatility and proactive stance on protecting cultural heritage. Through Global Outreach and Awareness initiatives, the ICC enhances public understanding and acceptance of international justice. In the Central African Republic (CAR), educational campaigns about Jean-Pierre Bemba's trial helped foster community awareness and reconciliation, highlighting the ICC’s role in promoting global justice education.

WEAKNESSES OF ICC: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

The ICC is currently facing significant challenges which may put the court’s legitimacy into question. These challenges include a weak record of prosecutions, discord among the court’s judges, and a difficult relationship with the world’s great powers, such as Russia and the United States.

I. Limited Jurisdiction

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdictional limits that restrict its ability to investigate and prosecute international crimes. For instance, the ICC cannot investigate and prosecute crimes committed by US citizens, as the US is not a party to the Rome Statute. This limitation was highlighted in the Situation in Afghanistan (ICC-02/17), where the ICC's investigation into war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan was hindered by the US's non-party status. Another jurisdictional limit is the requirement that the alleged crimes must have been committed after the entry into force of the Rome Statute on July 1, 2002. This limitation means that the ICC cannot investigate and prosecute crimes committed before this date, even if they constitute genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. Furthermore, the ICC's jurisdiction is also limited by the principle of complementarity, which requires that the ICC can only investigate and prosecute crimes if the state with jurisdiction over the crimes is unwilling or unable to do so. This limitation means that the ICC cannot investigate and prosecute crimes if the state with jurisdiction over the crimes is willing and able to do so. This limitation was highlighted in the Situation in Colombia (ICC-01/11), where the ICC's investigation into war crimes committed by the Colombian military was closed due to the Colombian government's efforts to investigate and prosecute the crimes. These limitations highlight the need for states to cooperate with the ICC and to implement the Rome Statute domestically to ensure that international crimes are investigated and prosecuted effectively.

II. Lack of Enforcement Power

The International Criminal Court (ICC) faces significant challenges in enforcing its decisions, which undermines its ability to deliver justice and hold perpetrators accountable. One of the primary enforcement problems is the lack of a police force or enforcement mechanism to arrest and detain suspects. The ICC relies on states to arrest and surrender suspects, but this can be a lengthy and uncertain process. For instance, the ICC's arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, the former President of Sudan, has been outstanding since 2009, but he has repeatedly travelled to states that are party to the Rome Statute without being arrested. This highlights the ICC's lack of enforcement power and its reliance on state cooperation. The ICC's decision in the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09) emphasized the need for state cooperation in enforcing the court's decisions. The court relies on states to imprison convicted individuals, but this can be problematic if states are unwilling or unable to do so. Some states, including the United States, China, and Russia, have not ratified the Rome Statute and are therefore not bound by its provisions. This lack of universal support undermines the ICC's ability to enforce its decisions and highlights the need for greater international cooperation and support for the court.

III. Limited Access and Delayed Investigation

The International Criminal Court (ICC) faces significant challenges in investigating international crimes, which hinders its ability to deliver justice and hold perpetrators accountable. One of the primary investigating problems is the lack of access to crime scenes and evidence. The ICC relies on states to provide access to crime scenes and evidence, but this can be difficult to obtain, especially in situations where the state is unwilling to cooperate or is itself implicated in the crimes. For instance, the ICC's investigation into war crimes in Syria has been hindered by the lack of access to crime scenes and evidence. The Syrian government has refused to cooperate with the ICC, and the court has had to rely on secondary sources of evidence, such as witness testimony and video footage. This lack of access to primary evidence has made it difficult for the ICC to build strong cases against suspects. The ICC has limited resources and expertise, which can make it difficult to investigate complex crimes. For example, the ICC's investigation into war crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been hindered by the lack of forensic expertise and resources. The court has had to rely on external experts and organizations to provide forensic analysis and other specialized services. Furthermore, the ICC also faces challenges in protecting witnesses and victims who participate in its investigations.

IV. ICC’s Reliance on State Cooperation

Dependence on state cooperation is a significant challenge that can hinder the ICC's ability to effectively investigate and prosecute international crimes. The ICC's reliance on states to arrest and surrender suspects is a prime example of this challenge. For instance, the ICC's reliance on the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to arrest and surrender Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a Congolese militia leader, took several years to materialize. The ICC's decision in the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04-01/06) highlighted the court's dependence on state cooperation for the arrest and surrender of suspects. Furthermore, the ICC relies on states to provide evidence and witnesses to support its investigations and prosecutions. However, states may refuse to cooperate with the court or may not have the capacity to do so. For example, the ICC's investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan was hindered by the lack of cooperation from the US government, which refused to provide evidence and witnesses. The ICC's decision in the Situation in Afghanistan (ICC-02/17) highlighted the court's dependence on state cooperation for the provision of evidence. Additionally, the ICC relies on states to enforce its decisions, including the execution of arrest warrants and the imposition of sentences. For example, the ICC's reliance on the DRC to protect witnesses and victims who testified in the trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo highlights the court's dependence on state cooperation for the protection of witnesses and victims.

The International Criminal Court and Trump’s Sanctions

The International Criminal Court's (ICC) quest for justice is hindered by the lack of cooperation from certain states, as evident in the recent executive order issued by US President Donald Trump. The ICC's investigations into war crimes and human rights abuses committed by US and Israeli personnel have been met with resistance, with the US refusing to recognize the ICC's jurisdiction.

On February 6, 2025, Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, find that the International Criminal Court (ICC), as established by the Rome Statute, has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel. The ICC has, without a legitimate basis, asserted jurisdiction over and opened preliminary investigations concerning personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including Israel, and has further abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel, as neither country is party to the Rome Statute or a member of the ICC. Neither country has ever recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction, and both nations are thriving democracies with militaries that strictly adhere to the laws of war. The ICC’s recent actions against Israel and the United States set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. This malign conduct in turn threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and undermines the critical national security and foreign policy work of the United States Government and our allies, including Israel. Furthermore, in 2002, the Congress enacted the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.) to protect United States military personnel, United States officials, and officials and military personnel of certain allied countries against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party, stating, “In addition to exposing members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the risk of international criminal prosecution, the Rome Statute creates a risk that the President and other senior elected and appointed officials of the United States Government may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.” Trump declared that the United States would unequivocally resist any actions by the court targeting the U.S or its allies. His stance marked a new low in the U.S-ICC relations. Trump has also made it clear that the United States can impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgression. Sanctioning ICC officials seen in the executive order could weaken the court's ability to function independently and deter future investigations. ICC officials will have a more difficult time pursuing investigations into war crimes and human rights abuses fearing retaliation from the United States. “The financial restrictions it will impose undermine the ICC and its investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity across the world, including those committed against women and children.”

This lack of cooperation undermines the ICC's ability to hold perpetrators accountable and deliver justice to victims. The ICC's quest for justice is rooted in its mandate to investigate and prosecute international crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. However, the court's reliance on state cooperation for enforcement and investigations creates a significant challenge. Without cooperation from states, the ICC's ability to gather evidence, arrest suspects, and enforce its decisions is severely limited. The order demonstrates the willingness of certain states to undermine the ICC's authority and impede its investigations. This not only hinders the ICC's ability to deliver justice but also undermines the rule of law and the principles of accountability.

THE PROSPECT OF ICC: THE FUTURE DIRECTIONS

With a view to the future, the landscape of international criminal law with respect to Genocide, War crimes, Crime of aggression and Crimes against humanity can advance along further paths of evolution and development. In this regard, the present section sets out the potential trajectories, emerging challenges and opportunities for improvement. The ICC’s prosecutor should construct a careful strategy regarding future case selection, which should include considerations such as the prospects of a successful conviction, the possibility that the chosen case and prosecution will lead toward more prosecutions of higher-level defendants, geographic diversity to ensure that defendants from all parts of the world are investigated and prosecuted, as well as any political concerns related to the opening of a new case. The ICC needs to foster better cooperation from its member states, as well as from other states throughout the world. The court cannot succeed if it surrounded by hostile states, as all of its investigations depend on the host country’s willingness to cooperate with the court. These challenges can be surmounted if the court is willing to take a hard look at its own procedures, prosecutorial practices, and judicial attitudes. The ICC’s future may be bright if the court makes significant changes in the present.

I. Expanding the Jurisdiction and Reach

Finally, calls have been made to expand the jurisdiction of the ICC and international mechanisms to newer categories of crime, such as environmental crimes and cyber warfare (Stanton, 2013). It will also be vital to ensure a wider ratification and adherence to the Rome Statute and other international treaties to expand the global reach and influence of international criminal law.

II. Strengthening State Cooperation and Enforcement

In conclusion, the effectiveness of international criminal law depends to a large extent on the cooperation of states. Future outcomes could involve more integrated frameworks between states and incentives for arresting and surrendering suspects of the aforementioned crimes, as well as enforcing judicial action. However, ensuring a cause of political bias and a balance between the application of ICL across different regions and conflicts will be a critical factor in the future of ICL.

III. Integrating Restorative Justice Models

Restorative justice is increasingly recognized in international criminal law. Future developments may see a greater integration of victim-centered approaches, focusing on reparations, reconciliation, and community building, and retribution:

IV. Adapting to Technological Advancements

Keeping pace with technological advancements will be crucial. It involves updating legal frameworks to cover the crime committed in cyberspace, as well as using technology to collect evidence, protect witnesses and prosecute them.

V. Enhancing Collaboration with National Courts

Enhancing the capacity of national courts to prosecute international crimes under the principle of complementarity; this will involve the training, sharing of resources and legal support that will be channelled to strengthen the domestic trials and the international system of justice Bibi Works cited.

VI. Addressing Impunity for Powerful Actors

One of the major concerns is addressing the lack of punishment for state and non-state actors with power. In this case, one of the major changes or developments for the future is the reform aimed at ensuring that these actors are punished, regardless of the political or financial power.

VII. Promoting Universal Jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction may become more widespread, and national courts get more chances to prosecute international crimes and support the work of international tribunals.

VIII. Public Engagement and Awareness

It is essential to improve the public’s awareness and backing for international criminal justice processes. Such initiatives should involve education, the media, and transparency in court processes. This will contribute to the creation of a global culture of resistance against impunity. The future of international criminal law is “multifaceted”; while preserving the national sovereignty principle and keeping up with global conflicts and technological trends, it involves a compromise between punitive and restorative justice approaches. As the world continues experiencing new types of conflict and human rights abuse, the role of international criminal law remains vital.

CONCLUSION

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a vital institution in the pursuit of international justice, but it is not without its weaknesses and strengths. On one hand, the ICC's reliance on state cooperation, limited jurisdiction, and lengthy proceedings can hinder its ability to deliver justice to victims of international crimes. The ICC's lack of universal support and the absence of key states, such as the United States, China, and Russia, from its membership also limit its effectiveness. Furthermore, the ICC's financial constraints and limited resources can impede its ability to investigate and prosecute complex cases.

On the other hand, the ICC's independence, impartiality, and commitment to accountability have enabled it to investigate and prosecute complex cases, providing a measure of justice to victims and their families. The ICC's ability to hold individuals accountable for international crimes has also helped to deter future atrocities and promote a culture of accountability. Moreover, the ICC's role in promoting international cooperation and facilitating the exchange of information and best practices among states has helped to strengthen national justice systems and promote the rule of law.

The journey of international criminal from the ad hoc post-World War II to an organized body as in the ICC creation and formalization signals great agreement between nations on the global platform that all perpetrators must be brought into account irrespective of their status or the nature of wars. But it is still clear that this is just a part of the journey. Limited jurisdiction, power-derived authority, state refusal attitude, the limit in resources, and blurred linearity of legal and political justice outlines the dilemma of international criminal justice. However, the way forward is determined by how the responses to these challenges are presented. Expanding jurisdiction, enforcing state-party relationship, incorporating the restorative dimensions, capacity to adopt technology, and, more critically, equity and taming the powerful are critical. In summation, despite the numerous glooms that the criminal justice regime may be, the will to uphold it remains very central to the pursuit of human rights and global order. Hence the passion of nations to reform and enhance this state will make or break humans’ desire to curb criminal acts. Justice, how hard it is to attain, will remain central to the vision of a better world.

Looking forward, it is essential that the ICC addresses its weaknesses while building on its strengths. To do this, the ICC must continue to work with states to build trust and ensure cooperation, while also exploring alternative means of evidence collection and witness protection. The ICC should also prioritize efficiency and expediency in its proceedings, while maintaining the integrity and fairness of its processes. Furthermore, the ICC must continue to adapt to emerging challenges, such as the rise of new technologies and the increasing complexity of international conflicts.

.    .    .

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BOOKS:

1. Cassese, Antonio, and others. International Criminal Law:
   Cases and Commentary. Oxford University Press, 2013.
2. Cryer, Robert, and others. An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
3. Schabas, William A. The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press,
   2016.

ARTICLES:

1. Human Rights Watch. "ICC: First Major War Crimes Conviction." Human Rights Watch, 2019.
2. International Justice Monitor. "Summary of the Closing Statements in The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo." International Justice Monitor, 2011.
3. General ICC Arrest Warrant Process: How the Court Works, International Criminal Court,2020

REPORTS AND GUIDELINES:

1. Hersh, Seymour M, My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and Its Aftermath.
2. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
   'Annual Report 1994' (1995).
3. United Nations, 'Report of the Secretary-General on the Role of the International Criminal Court in the Fight against Impunity' (2018) S/2018/521.

LEGISLATION:

1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
2. American Service-Members' Protection Act, 2002, 22
   USC § 7421.
3. United Nations Charter, 26 June 1945.