The Role of the ICC (International Criminal Court): Is It Failing inDelivering Justice?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established with a grand vision—to end impunity for the world’s worst crimes and ensure justice for victims of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In theory, it was meant to be the ultimate watchdog, the judge of last resort when national courts failed. In practice, however, the ICC has often found itself stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire, criticized for inefficiency, bias, and its inability to enforce its own rulings.

So, is the ICC truly a beacon of global justice, or is it just an expensive courtroom drama where real criminals walk free? Let’s dive into the complexities, controversies, and occasional absurdities of international justice.

A Brief Overview: What is the ICC?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established under the Rome Statute in 2002, making it the first permanent international court created to prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. Unlike the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which deals with disputes between states, the ICC prosecutes individuals, from warlords to political leaders.

Its mandate covers four primary crimes:

• Genocide: the deliberate extermination of a group.

• War Crimes: violations of the laws of war (like killing civilians).

• Crimes Against Humanity: widespread, systematic attacks against civilians.

• Crime of Aggression: illegal wars or invasions.

As of today, 123 countries are signatories to the Rome Statute, but key global players like the United States, China, Russia, and India have refused to join—an early sign of the court’s credibility issues.

The ICC’s Scorecard: Justice Served or Justice Delayed?

The ICC has been in operation for over two decades, but its track record is, at best, underwhelming. Consider these statistics:

Only 10 convictions since 2002. Yes, you read that right—just 10 people convicted in over 20 years. Cases take an average of 8-10 years to complete, with some dragging on for over a decade. Many high-profile cases collapse due to lack of evidence or witness intimidation. For a court that has spent over $2 billion since its inception, that’s an ROI that would make even the worst-performing hedge fund blush.

Selective Justice: The ICC’s Alleged Bias

One of the biggest criticisms against the ICC is its apparent focus on Africa. Out of all 46 indictments, the overwhelming majority have been against African leaders and warlords. This has led to accusations that the ICC is a neo-colonial tool used to prosecute leaders from developing nations while ignoring powerful offenders from the West.

For instance:

• The US and Russia have been involved in multiple war crimes allegations, yet neither country is under ICC scrutiny.

• Israel’s actions in Gaza and Palestine have sparked global outrage, yet ICC investigations remain politically sensitive.

• Meanwhile, leaders from Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, and Libya have all been prosecuted with fervor.

• African leaders have responded with growing hostility—Burundi withdrew from the ICC in 2017, and South Africa, Kenya, and the African Union have all threatened mass withdrawals, calling the ICC a “court for Africans only”.

  
  

Lack of Enforcement Power: The ICC’s Biggest Weakness

The ICC might issue arrest warrants, but it lacks police powers to enforce them. Unlike a national court that can send officers to arrest criminals, the ICC relies on member states to carry out arrests. This has led to numerous embarrassing moments:

In 2009, Omar al-Bashir, the then-president of Sudan, was indicted for genocide in Darfur. Yet, he traveled freely across Africa, even visiting ICC member states like South Africa, which simply ignored the arrest warrant.

Vladimir Putin was issued an arrest warrant in 2023 over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but he continues to hold diplomatic meetings like nothing happened.Without real enforcement power, ICC arrest warrants often seem more like strongly worded letters than actual legal actions.

Too Slow, Too Expensive: Justice at a Snail’s Pace

A courtroom drama should be engaging, but ICC trials often resemble a slow-motion soap opera. The trial of Jean-Pierre Bemba, a Congolese leader, took 10 years—only for his conviction to be overturned.

Prosecuting a single case costs between $20-30 million. By the time a verdict is reached, many

key witnesses die, disappear, or change their statements. If justice delayed is justice denied, then the ICC is denying justice at a professional level.

Political Interference & Hypocrisy

While the ICC was meant to be independent, it often bows to political pressure. The US, for instance, refuses to join the ICC but actively pressures the court to investigate its rivals, like Russia.

In 2020, when the ICC announced an investigation into US war crimes in Afghanistan, the Trump administration retaliated by sanctioning ICC officials—a move that sent a clear message:

“We support international justice, just not when it applies to us”. Similarly, the ICC’s investigation into Israel’s actions in Palestine faces extreme pressure from Western nations, showing that international justice is often dictated by who holds the most power.

Is the ICC a Failure?

Not entirely. The ICC has had some successes, including:

• Convicted Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese warlord, for using child soldiers.

• Issued arrest warrants for Putin and Bashar al-Assad, keeping pressure on global offenders.

Establishing international precedents that national courts can build upon. However, its failures are slow trials, selective justice, lack of enforcement, and political bias that often outweigh its achievements.

The ICC’s core mission is to end impunity, but it has largely failed to hold powerful states accountable, making it look toothless against global superpowers and effective only against small-time warlords.

Can the ICC Be Fixed?

For the ICC to truly deliver justice, it needs major reforms:

• Stronger Enforcement Mechanisms: Creating an independent enforcement body (or even partnering with UN peacekeeping forces) could help execute arrest warrants.

• Faster Trials: The court must streamline its process to prevent decade-long trials.

• Universal Jurisdiction: Major global players like the US, China, and Russia must be held accountable like everyone else.

• Greater Transparency: Reducing political influence and making investigations truly independent would help restore credibility.

Until then, the ICC will remain a courtroom that issues big statements but struggles to bring big criminals to justice.

Conclusion: A Court with Good Intentions but Weak Execution

The ICC was created with a noble vision, but in reality, it has become a symbol of international justice’s limitations. Without real enforcement power, fair global jurisdiction, and faster trial processes, the ICC risks being a court that talks tough but rarely delivers results.

So, does the ICC serve justice? Sometimes. But until it can bring the world’s most powerful criminals to trial, it remains a flawed institution—one that shows us that while justice may be blind, it’s also incredibly slow and often politically motivated.

Author:Jyoti Tomar

Co- Author: Abhinandan Singh