In a world marked by complexity and turmoil—where conflicts unfold one after another and violence and violations escalate—the need emerges for a global legal entity that is not biased toward any state or regime, but is capable of confronting crimes that shake the conscience of humanity. From this necessity, the idea of establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) was born: to serve as the final safeguard against impunity for perpetrators of the gravest crimes that threaten international peace and security.
The Trust Fund for Victims of the Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda documents the story of Sheema, one of the survivors of the genocide. Her painful journey began when she was just eleven years old. She lost most of her family during the massacres committed by Hutu militias against the Tutsi minority. Only four out of eight children in her family survived. Both her father and mother were killed. Since 1994, Sheema has borne the responsibility of caring for her younger siblings, despite her own young age and need for care.
Before the catastrophe, her family lived a modest life. Her father was a contractor, and her mother a housewife. But everything changed the day after the president’s assassination was announced. Armed men stormed their neighborhood and began committing atrocities.
Sheema witnessed her father being killed by nearly thirty men from the Interahamwe militia. The men were separated from the women and children and slaughtered with machetes. She recalls hearing her father’s screams as he was beaten to death, without even a chance to defend himself.
Next came the women’s turn. They were subjected to mass rape and then taken to a nearby river, where many were thrown in to drown. Amid the chaos, Sheema managed to flee with her little sister. They hid in a swamp and later sought refuge in a church along with other displaced people. Eventually, they reached a location under the control of United Nations forces. Thinking they were finally safe, they watched as those forces soon departed in helicopters—dashing Sheema’s hopes for rescue and leaving innocent people to be slaughtered.
To this day, Sheema suffers from grief, loneliness, and poverty. She struggles even to continue her education. Still, she remembers her father’s last words urging them to be brave and love one another. She has taken to writing her feelings in a private notebook and uses poetry as a form of emotional release. She shares her pain with other orphans in solidarity camps. Despite her trauma, she holds onto hope that one day her poems will be published and continues to fight for a better life for her siblings—carrying the scars of genocide in her heart and memory.
This was just one of the real scenes of the Rwandan genocide, which occurred between April and July of 1994, claiming the lives of nearly 800,000 people from the Tutsi minority at the hands of extremists from the Hutu majority.
On the other side of the world, roughly a year after the Rwandan massacres, the Srebrenica massacre took place in July 1995. It was carried out by Serbian forces against Bosnian Muslims and resulted in the killing of more than 8,000 men and boys within a few days—even though the town was officially under the protection of United Nations forces, which withdrew in the face of the Serb advance without offering any resistance.
Such stories were preceded by the horrors of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime in the 1970s, during which over two million people perished in death camps. There was no deterrent law, no accountability—only victims and perpetrators disappearing into the shadows.
Behind every image of a broken child or grieving mother, one question echoed: Where is justice?
From the womb of these tragedies, the dream of a permanent international court began to take shape—one not subject to the whims of individual states or the turbulence of politics. It would be a voice for the voiceless, a mechanism to pursue tyrants and criminals, even if they fled across borders or continents.
In Rome, between July 17 and 18, 1998, representatives of 120 countries gathered in the grand hall of the international conference. As soon as the vote of approval was announced, the room erupted in applause, embraces, and tears.
That was the official announcement of the birth of the International Criminal Court—an institution long dreamed of, and now finally a reality.
As American diplomat John Washburn described in his article published in the Peace Through Law journal, titled Negotiating the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and Establishing International Legislation in the 21st Century, that moment was a “global epiphany,” adding: “Many attendees saw in it a fundamental shift in the future of international law.”
That moment crowned years of effort. In 1994, the International Law Commission of the United Nations completed its work on the first comprehensive draft of a statute for a permanent international criminal court.
As stated in the Commission’s 1994 report, the aim of the court was “to provide a fair forum for the prosecution of individuals accused of international crimes, in cases where national judicial systems are unable to do so.”
That draft consisted of 60 articles covering all aspects related to the court’s establishment, jurisdiction, organizational structure, and mechanisms for cooperation with states.
Then, in 1995, the United Nations General Assembly issued Resolution 50/46, which established a preparatory committee to draft a unified statute for the court. The committee worked for nineteen weeks and produced a draft containing 116 articles, surrounded by more than 1,700 brackets of unresolved text—what Washburn described as “one of the most complex exercises in diplomatic negotiation in the history of the United Nations.”
In June 1998, state representatives convened at the Rome Diplomatic Conference, with the goal of finalizing negotiations and adopting the statute within five weeks. Despite strong opposition from major powers like the United States and China, the participating states succeeded in reaching consensus.
The statute adopted in Rome, known as the Rome Statute, contained 128 articles and declared the establishment of a permanent court headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands. It would have jurisdiction over four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
Article I of the Statute, according to the official document, states that the court is “a permanent institution with the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, and is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.”
In the preamble, the signatory states recognized that millions of children, women, and men had been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shocked the conscience of humanity. They emphasized that it is the duty of every state to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.
Thus, the court was born from a historically delayed but necessary awareness. As Professor Cherif Bassiouni wrote in the introduction to his book on the court: “The establishment of the court was the result of a long accumulation of failures to hold perpetrators accountable, and the crystallization of an international will to end impunity.”
And so, on July 17, 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was signed—becoming the founding document of the Court and marking its birth as a serious attempt to end the era of impunity and begin a new era of cross-border justice.
The establishment of the Court was not a coincidence; rather, it was the culmination of a long journey of international efforts aimed at laying the foundation for an effective international legal system that holds individuals accountable for crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and the crime of aggression.
The roots of the idea to create an international judicial body to prosecute individuals go back to the aftermath of World War II, specifically to the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, which prosecuted those responsible for war crimes. However, those tribunals were temporary in nature and limited to specific defendants.
Over time, and with the escalation of armed conflicts in the 1990s—accompanied by serious human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda—the international community recognized the urgent need for a permanent and independent court.
The negotiation process for the Rome Statute was complex, facing numerous challenges and disagreements over the Court’s powers, jurisdiction, and its relationship to national sovereignty. Yet, in the end, 60 countries reached a consensus that enabled the establishment of this unique judicial institution, which entered into force on July 1, 2002, thereby officially launching the Court’s operations. Notably, the Court does not have retroactive effect on crimes committed before that date.
The United Nations website clarified the distinction between the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), stating that “while the ICJ is one of the principal organs of the United Nations, the ICC is legally independent from the UN, although it is endorsed by the General Assembly.”
It further explained that “although not all of the UN’s 193 member states are parties to the ICC, the Court can initiate investigations and open cases related to alleged crimes committed on the territory of a State Party, or by a national of a State Party to the ICC, or of a State that has accepted its jurisdiction.”
Article 5 of the Rome Statute defines the crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, stating that “the jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Under this Statute, the Court has jurisdiction in respect of the following crimes: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.”
Article 6 details the types of acts that constitute the crime of genocide as any actions committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These include: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 7 defines crimes against humanity as any widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population on political, racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, or gender grounds. These acts include: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of international law, torture, sexual violence such as rape, sexual slavery, enforced pregnancy or forced sterilization, enforced disappearance, apartheid, or any other inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Article 8 defines war crimes as serious violations committed as part of a plan or policy, or on a large scale, during armed conflicts. These crimes include grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their subsequent protocols, such as willful killing, torture, inhuman treatment, biological experiments, unlawful deportation or imprisonment, and taking hostages.
War crimes also encompass acts such as targeting civilians or civilian property, attacking humanitarian missions or peacekeeping forces, launching attacks causing excessive harm to civilians or the environment, killing or wounding surrendered combatants, misusing protected symbols like ambulance or press emblems, or forcibly transferring populations to or from occupied territories.
They also include attacks on religious, medical, or educational institutions, forced medical experiments, treacherous killings, destruction of property without military necessity, plundering cities, using prohibited weapons such as poisons, gases, or expanding bullets, employing indiscriminate means of warfare, attacking personal dignity, rape and other forms of sexual violence, using civilians as human shields, or deliberate attacks on medical facilities or individuals protected under international law.
The Court operates under the principle of complementarity, meaning it is not a substitute for national judicial systems but rather complements them. The Court may only exercise its jurisdiction when states are unwilling or genuinely unable to carry out investigations or prosecutions related to crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction. This principle is designed to respect national sovereignty while ensuring that perpetrators of such crimes do not escape justice.
Article 17 states that a case is inadmissible before the International Criminal Court if it is being investigated or prosecuted by a state with jurisdiction, unless that state is unwilling or unable to do so.
A case is also inadmissible if a state has investigated it and decided not to prosecute, provided the decision is not due to unwillingness or genuine inability. Additionally, the case will be rejected if the person has already been tried for the same conduct, or if the case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
To assess a state’s unwillingness, the Court examines whether the proceedings are intended to shield the individual from criminal responsibility, whether there is unjustified delay, or whether the proceedings lack independence or impartiality. In cases of inability, the Court evaluates whether there is a total or substantial collapse of the national judicial system, or if the state lacks the necessary capacity to carry out the investigation or gather evidence.
Despite the vital role the Court plays in promoting international justice, it faces numerous challenges that affect its effectiveness and ability to fulfill its mandate. The ICC heavily relies on state cooperation in arresting and surrendering suspects, collecting evidence, and enforcing sentences. In many cases, the Court encounters significant obstacles in securing this cooperation, particularly from states that do not recognize its jurisdiction or have political interests that conflict with the Court’s investigations.
The Court is also subjected to political pressure from certain states, especially those seeking to protect their nationals from prosecution or opposing the principle of international criminal justice.
Moreover, the ICC faces financial challenges, as it depends heavily on voluntary contributions from member states, which can affect its capacity to conduct investigations and trials efficiently.
Unfortunately, the Court’s jurisdiction over the four aforementioned crimes means that many other serious offenses fall outside its authority.
The issue of immunity for heads of state and government officials also poses a significant challenge. Some argue that the Court should be able to prosecute such individuals, while others maintain that their immunity is essential for the stability of states.
Nonetheless, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has achieved some notable successes, including issuing convictions against individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, and the Central African Republic. The Court has also played a key role in promoting a culture of accountability and sending a clear message that those who commit heinous crimes will not escape justice. It pays particular attention to the protection of victims and witnesses, offering them psychological support.
One such example, as published on the ICC’s official website, is the trial of Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, known as Ali Kushayb, before the International Criminal Court for his role as a commander of the Janjaweed militia in Darfur, Sudan. His trial began on April 5, 2022. He is facing 31 counts, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as murder, torture, rape, forced displacement, pillaging, destruction of property, and the persecution of civilians.
If convicted, he cannot be sentenced to death; however, the Court may impose a prison sentence of up to 30 years or life imprisonment, in addition to fines and confiscation of assets.
Victims are participating in the trial through legal representatives, currently totaling 142 individuals. They have the right to submit briefs, cross-examine witnesses, and express their views on legal and factual matters. They may also apply for reparations, such as financial compensation, the return of property, or an official apology.
The case is being overseen by three female judges: Presiding Judge Joanna Korner, Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou, and Judge Althea Alexis-Windsor, all of whom have extensive judicial experience in international criminal law and human rights.
According to the International Criminal Court’s website, the Court’s Pre-Trial Chamber I unanimously issued two decisions on November 21, 2024, rejecting Israel’s appeals challenging the Court’s jurisdiction over the situation in the State of Palestine. The Chamber also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The Court rejected Israel’s challenge to its general jurisdiction over the situation in Palestine or over Israeli nationals, deeming the appeal premature and affirming that the Court exercises jurisdiction based on Palestine’s territorial jurisdiction.
Additionally, the Court denied Israel’s request for a new notification regarding the opening of the investigation, confirming that Israel had already been notified in 2021 and that the scope of the investigation had not changed. Arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were issued on charges of committing crimes against humanity and war crimes since October 8, 2023.
According to the ICC, these crimes include starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts, as well as the deliberate targeting of civilians.
The Court also affirmed that international humanitarian law applies to the armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, noting that the restrictions imposed on humanitarian aid were not militarily justified and that any increases in aid were mostly the result of international pressure.
The State of Palestine accepted the Court’s jurisdiction in 2015, referred the situation to the Prosecutor in 2018, and the investigation was officially opened in 2021.
Despite the challenges, the International Criminal Court remains a vital pillar of international justice. Its very existence sends a powerful message that the international community will not tolerate the most serious crimes, and that those who commit them will be held accountable—sooner or later.
To strengthen the Court’s effectiveness in the future, State Parties must enhance their cooperation with it, provide adequate financial resources, and uphold the principles of the Rome Statute. Likewise, the Court must strive to improve transparency and efficiency in its operations and respond to criticism constructively.
In a world marked by rapid geopolitical shifts and evolving conflict dynamics, the ICC’s role as a mechanism for enforcing international humanitarian and criminal law becomes increasingly crucial. Its ability to adapt to new challenges, expand its reach, and ensure accountability for heinous crimes will be essential to building a more just and peaceful world.
The International Criminal Court is not merely a judicial institution—it stands as a symbol of hope that justice will ultimately prevail and that the victims of grave crimes will not be forgotten.
The ICC represents a turning point in the history of international justice, transforming the concept of accountability for atrocities from theory into concrete reality. While its journey has not been without obstacles, the Court has proven its capacity to play a pivotal role in prosecuting perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.
Today, according to the ICC’s official website, the Court has over 900 staff members from around 100 countries. It recognizes six official languages: English, French, Arabic, Chinese, Russian, and Spanish. Its headquarters is located in The Hague, Netherlands, with a liaison office at the United Nations in New York, and six field offices in Kinshasa and Bunia (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Kampala (Uganda), Bangui (Central African Republic), Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire), Bamako (Mali), and Kyiv (Ukraine). The Court uses English and French as its working languages. Its 2025 budget is estimated at a modest €195 million.
To date, the Court has handled 33 cases, with some involving multiple suspects. Judges have issued 61 arrest warrants; thanks to state cooperation, 22 individuals have been arrested and brought before the Court. Thirty individuals remain at large, while charges were dropped against eight due to their deaths. Judges have also issued nine summonses to appear, handed down 11 convictions, and rendered four acquittals.
