top of page

A short note the ICC

The ICC's reliance on State Parties for enforcement, evidenced by its lack of a dedicated enforcement apparatus, underscores the indispensability of such cooperation. A primary example of this interdependence can be observed in the investigation and prosecution process. The ICC relies heavily on State Parties for evidence collection, arrest, and surrender of suspects. This reliance can sometimes create an imbalance of power, favouring states that can withhold cooperation, thus rendering the ICC less effective.

A glaring example of this predicament is the situation in Ukraine. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, a part of Ukraine, in a move widely criticized and deemed illegal by the international community.[1] Despite Ukraine accepting the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory from 2013 onwards, Russia's non-membership in the ICC has impeded the Court's ability to investigate alleged crimes committed during the annexation.[2] As Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute, it does not have a legal obligation to cooperate with the ICC, thereby hampering the Court's ability to carry out its mandate fully.

The ICC's authority to issue arrest warrants and summonses to appear is another critical aspect of its enforcement powers. States Parties are legally obligated to comply with these judicial orders by apprehending individuals indicted by the Court and facilitating their trial at the ICC. However, compliance with these arrest warrants has been a persistent challenge. Again, the situation regarding Ukraine provides an insightful example. The ICC's inability to investigate alleged crimes in the annexed region of Crimea is linked to the fact that Russia, as a non-member of the ICC, does not recognize the Court's authority and has consistently refused to cooperate, further underscoring the challenges facing the Court.[3] The ICC's enforcement mechanisms are a crucial component of its operations and effectiveness. Enshrined primarily in Part 9 of the Rome Statute, these mechanisms provide the means through which the court can ensure compliance with its decisions and orders.[4]The enforcement mechanisms of the ICC, particularly the duty of cooperation imposed on State Parties, are pivotal in the successful prosecution of serious international crimes. Enshrined in Article 86 of the Rome Statute, this duty to cooperate fully is all-encompassing, ranging from executing arrest warrants to providing necessary evidence. The ICC's success or failure, to a significant extent, hinges on the compliance of states with this mandate.

The failure of States Parties to comply with ICC orders not only breaches their legal obligations under the Rome Statute, but it also critically undermines the Court's effectiveness. It significantly restricts the Court's capacity to uphold its mandate to end impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. This failing points to a deeper structural problem in international law, that of enforcing international obligations against sovereign states.[5] Thus, while the ICC serves as a beacon for international justice and accountability, its effectiveness is closely tied to the level of cooperation it receives from States Parties. The Court's dependence on state cooperation to carry out its mandate poses serious challenges to its function and efficacy, underlining the need for more robust mechanisms to enforce state compliance with the Rome Statute. These challenges underscore the need for a more nuanced approach to the ICC's operations. Strategies could include focusing on strengthening national judicial systems to address crimes domestically, promoting regional approaches to justice, and developing clearer guidelines for when and how the court should intervene.

[1] UN General Assembly, ‘Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 27 March 2014’ (1 April 2014) UN Doc A/RES/68/262. [2] ICC, 'Ukraine Accepts ICC Jurisdiction Over Alleged Crimes Committed Since February 2014' (9 April 2014) <>. [3] International Criminal Court, 'Situation in Ukraine' <>. [4] Rome Statute, Part 9. [5] Antonio Cassese, 'On the Current Trends towards Criminal Prosecution and Punishment of Breaches of International Humanitarian Law' (1998) 9 European Journal of International Law 2, 4.


bottom of page