Born out of the ashes of war, international criminal justice began at Nuremberg with a bold vow: no one would be above the law. Seasons changed to decades, and the ICC and the Ad Hoc Tribunals have become the landmark examples of global accountability. But whether International Criminal Justice in producing justice, or selectively enforcing law based on geopolitics is still a question. From arrests of an indictment of leaders of weaker states receiving the lion's share of the attention of the ICC being unable to enforce its arrest warrants against powerful states, enforcement of International Law continues to be muddied, often caught in the crossroads of law and politics.
The journey began with the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials, by establishing principles of individuals responsibility for genocide, crime against humanity, and war crimes. Leaders of defeated powers were prosecuted for the same. Critics called it “victor's justice”, but it was the milestone – it happened first time where individuals held accountable for these crimes that to at the international level.
In the 1990s, the revitalization was visible to the world. The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) dealt with atrocities in the Balkans, while the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) responded to the genocide of 1994. These tribunals proved that the presidents and generals could be tried before the world.
ICC was established by the Rome Statute in 1998 and came into force on July 1, 2002. A permanent court in The Hague – to step in when the national courts fail to try these leaders. It was called “a court of last resort”.
What Has Been Achieved
While international criminal justice is slow, imperfect, and often messy, there are embodiments of strong successes that have changed the global narrative regarding accountability.
Take Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia. Mr. Taylor had long been a figure of incomprehensible power and notoriety - accused of exacerbating human rights atrocities in neighboring Sierra Leone. Yet, when he was convicted by the special tribunal for Sierra Leone, and it was communicated that as a political leader, he was no longer beyond reproach - it sent the clear message to the world that political office does not equal immunity.
The law itself also has grown richer through these trials. The tribunals for Rwanda and the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia were not simply courts that punished crime - they helped to redefine the existing law. Infamously, in the well-known case of Akayesu, the tribunal in Rwanda went much further than had ever been before and unequivocally stated that sexual violence may be defined as genocide. This was extraordinarily important recognition for victims who suffered in war and whose suffering had long been scapegoated into the shadows.
The ICC has also innovatively attempted to put victims front and center in its work. More than with the majority of domestic courts, the ICC provides victims actual pitching in the proceedings, not as witnesses, but as active participants in the story of the trial.
As well, there is the power of symbolism. ICC warrants, no matter how unenforced, matter. The indictment of Sudan's then-President Omar al-Bashir for genocide may not have gotten him to The Hague right away, but it put him in the spotlight in relation to world and international accountability. Regardless of where he went, the question followed: How long can someone like a leader of a nation evade justice?
While these victories do not provide immediate justice, they are slowly reshaping the destructive entitlement that accompanies power. Every conviction, judgment, and, dare I say, indictment is chipping away at our world's belief that some people are beyond reach.
Where Justice Stumbles
With all the achievements, ICC has also gathered a list of criticisms. Everyone has their own point of view on this. And some of them go right to the heart of its credibility. Some believe that the court has too little authority, others think it has too much prosecutorial power.
The ICC is plagued with persistent, recurring issues of selectivity, enforcement, and politics. In the early years of operation, it focused almost exclusively on Africa while powerful states like the U.S. and Russia simply went unaffected, building a perception of bias. While the Court has taken steps to investigate other geographical or social spaces, including Palestine, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Venezuela, the association of selectivity still persists.
The biggest deficiency is enforcement; as the ICC itself lacks any form of police force. The ICC depends on states, like the U.S, to arrest suspects as they carry out warrants. Cases like Omar al-Bashir traveling freely after an arrest warrant was issued highlights the challenge facing the Court. Politics is a second-degree issue; the ICC often relies on referrals from the UN Security Council. Such referrals rely on the intention of the permanent members.
Non-cooperation from states, specifically the U.S., Russia, China, India, and Israel eventually culminate in the diminished power of the ICC. Even within Africa, the Court has been most active in prosecuting cases, accusations of bias have persisted.
Ultimately, the ICC suffers from a paradox. It was intended to elevate and transcend the politics of power and deliver justice for all, yet barriers to effectiveness persist in the form of power politics, and enforcement deficiencies and issues of state sovereignty.
Justice In Action - Or Symbolism?
Current conflicts showcase the possibilities and limitations of the international criminal justice system. The ICC issued arrest warrants against major and minor world leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mohammed Deif. The ICC does not have the capacity to enforce such arrest warrants when states (like Russia and Israel) deny the Court's jurisdiction. In instances like this (arrest warrants), the indictment of powerful leaders are symbols of powerful rhetoric and not pronounced threats of legal repercussions.
As well, the Court has some successful cases: the Court successfully arrested former president of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte in 2025 over the extrajudicial killings of more than 30 000 people over a drug war, and the court charged leaders of the Taliban with gender-based crimes - the first case of its kind for the Court. But we must acknowledge the historical precedent of failure as well: Former president of the Sudan Omar al-Bashir and anti-colonial Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi both escaped arrest and trial while charges against political leaders in Kenya progressively collapsed as a result of political will and resistance.
Nevertheless, accountability goes beyond The Hague. Courts of other states have exercised universal jurisdiction on the torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, torturous practices used by Syrian officials in the court systems of Germany. In the end, the ICC is exceptionally capable and strong at sending messages, but hopelessly weak at delivering lasting forms of justice.
The Road Ahead
If international criminal justice is ever to move beyond mere symbolism, it is going to require more than some brave indictments. The ICC must free itself from the Security Council's grip, where political influence often decides who faces justice and who escapes it. If the ICC cannot free itself from that political dictation, it is more of a convenient option than a true court of law.
Enforcement matters too. Arrest warrants won't motivate anyone until they start meaning something. If ICC wishes to be credible, it has to forge stronger cooperative agreements with states so that not all individuals are free to travel the world without consequences. Justice cannot replicate itself if it relies only on goodwill.
At the same time though, the ICC cannot exist independently. Regional initiatives as seen in proposals for an African criminal court can also alleviate the burden and lessen accusations of bias. Closer interconnectedness between regional courts will means it is easier to hide, and harder for critics to call international law selective.
Yet trials and punishment were only part of the story. Justice cannot simply be punitive. While trials can provide a measure of justice, justice serves other purposes as well - notably, healing. In that regard, truth commissions, reparations, and restorative measures must accompany prosecution. There can be no complete verdict in the absence of healing for victims and societies.
The future path is not simple, but if these steps are taken, international criminal justice can begin the process of becoming a lasting reality, rather than a transient part of our collective consciousness.
International criminal justice has accomplished more than skeptics thought possible — it has convicted warlords, redefined the definitions of crimes like genocide, and put victims before the world. Yet, its flaws are undeniable: excessive prosecution focus, only weak enforcement, and political influences all suggest contradictions. The challenge now building the bridge between noble goals and messy reality. If the ICC and its partners can inspire cooperation, resist political pressure, and couple punishment with reconciliation, then the world might witness international justice become not just a symbol, but a promise the world can finally believe in.
Views are personal.