International Law and Global Security: Reassessing the Role of the International Criminal Court in the Pursuit of Accountability

Abstract

In an international system where crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes frequently escape sanction, the International Criminal Court (ICC), referred to throughout this article by its operational designation, the International Criminal Court (ICC), has emerged as the principal permanent institution mandated to prosecute the gravest offenses of international concern. Yet more than two decades after the entry into force of the Rome Statute, the Court's contribution to global security remains sharply contested. Drawing on structured interviews and focus group discussions with scholars and practitioners of international law, human rights, and security, and a systematic review of doctrinal and empirical literature, this article examines the function, achievements, and constraints of the Court. Anchored in constructivist international relations theory, the analysis finds that the Court's principal difficulties are political interference from powerful non-States Parties and permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, chronic resource constraints, an unresolved tension between the complementarity principle and state sovereignty, and persistent perceptions of selective justice in its case docket. At the same time, the Court has secured convictions of genuine deterrent and normative value, expanded victim participation in international proceedings, and catalysed domestic legal reform in several jurisdictions. The article argues that reforms to case-selection transparency, arrest-warrant enforcement mechanisms, and the Security Council's referral and deferral powers are necessary if the Court is to fulfill its promise as an instrument of global security rather than of selective accountability.