ICC’s quixotic fight vs impunity
The ICC’s record proves that prosecuting perpetrators of international crimes is possible, albeit it’s a complicated time-consuming undertaking.
Text size
The ICC’s record proves that prosecuting perpetrators of international crimes is possible, albeit it’s a complicated time-consuming undertaking.
Former President Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest on Tuesday, 11 March 2025, by local police acting on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity shines a bright light on the ICC, which for decades has been struggling with a lack of recognition and enforcement power.
The Court was birthed in 1998 under a treaty signed by a group of countries seeking an end to impunity for the world’s most serious crimes through a permanent international criminal tribunal.
Its operations were made official in 2002 with its headquarters located in The Hague, the Netherlands.
The ICC’s founding members — the 125 countries that were the States Parties that signed the Rome Statute which established the Court’s jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes, crimes against aggression and against humanity — intended the ICC to be a court of last resort for serious offenses that world governments could not or were unwilling to probe and prosecute.
Over two decades after its creation, the ICC’s record proves that prosecuting perpetrators of international crimes is possible, albeit it’s a complicated time-consuming undertaking.
Since its establishment in 2002, the court has been able to obtain 11 convictions and four acquittals — a small number, yes, but enough to dispel doubts about the Court’s viability. Still, its goals of ending impunity and preventing atrocities remain largely unattained.
Indeed, the wheels of international justice grind ever so slowly, as shown by the ICC’s low conviction rate. But international law enforcement authorities and jurists point out that it’s not so much the final judgement that matters, but that alleged perpetrators of atrocities are actually being pursued that sends the message that the international community is determined to combat impunity.
The ICC, since 2002, has opened 32 cases for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and other such offenses. Fourteen of these cases or some 40 percent are ongoing, although in most cases the suspects are at large and, sans a police force, the Court is unlikely to nab them anytime soon.
Of 60 arrest warrants issued since 2002, only 21 had been served before former President Duterte’s arrest.
The Court relies heavily on states to apprehend suspects but the incentive for their cooperation is low because, as former ICC adviser Pascal Turlan pointed out, the ICC “has nothing to offer in return, except for a commitment to seeing justice served.”
Among those on the ICC’s wanted list currently are Russian President Vladimir Putin, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony — all accused of war crimes.
There are dozens of nations, including Russia, Israel, the United States, China, and the Philippines, that do not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction and this hampers the Court’s efforts to investigate their nationals.
There are even ICC member states that defy the Court’s authority and refuse, outright, to hand over suspects. For example, France’s Macron has declared that if, say, Netanyahu visits Paris he won’t cooperate and turn over the Israeli leader to the ICC, but not if it concerns Putin should the latter step on French soil.
The ideal, for the ICC, is for nations to deal with their cases themselves rather than have the Court run after suspected war criminals.
But each case comes with its own unique set of challenges, from interference by national governments to the intimidation of witnesses. The latter instance caused the case against Kenya’s former deputy president William Ruto to fall apart in 2016.
Ruto was charged, along with radio broadcaster Joshua Sang, with orchestrating crimes against humanity following the disputed presidential election in 2007.
The suspects voluntarily appeared before the ICC after being issued summonses in March 2011. The trial started in September 2013, but this was terminated in April 2016 due to lack of evidence, with the ICC prosecutor alleging widespread witness tampering. Ruto has since become president of Kenya.
Such challenges partly explain the Court’s low conviction rate.
Another controversy the ICC faced was the fact that since it was established, most of the 11 guilty verdicts it had handed down were against officials of the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo.
All those convicted were Africans, which led to accusations the ICC was unfairly targeting Africa.
Criticism, including accusations of racism, of the Court’s record in Africa has been particularly pointed, and calls have been made for the withdrawal of African countries (currently 33 nations) from the ICC.
Likewise, among other powerful nations, the US — more so now under President Trump who has sanctioned the ICC over the latter’s investigations of potential war crimes against Afghanistan, including by the US, and into the actions of Israeli forces in the Gaza war — continues to shun the Rome Statute and is even hostile to the Court’s operations.
These challenges notwithstanding, the ICC’s mandate to end impunity for atrocities committed by nations remains as relevant today as on the day of its founding, and the Court continues to move international criminal law forward toward that goal.
