Imagine a world where those who commit the most horrific crimes – genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity – can’t just disappear into the shadows. That’s the world we’re fighting for by creating and supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC). And it’s a fight that’s getting more intense, more critical, and frankly, more fascinating by the day. This was the topic of a recent Project Save the World forum with two experts—Rebecca Shoot, Executive Director of Citizens for Global Solutions, and Lawrence Wittner, Professor Emeritus of History at the State University of New York. The focus? The International Criminal Court (ICC) and its role in addressing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the broader struggle for accountability in geopolitics.

Think of the ICC as a global watchdog, holding powerful individuals accountable for unspeakable acts. It’s not about targeting countries, but about going after the masterminds behind the worst atrocities imaginable. Rebecca emphasized the importance of the arrest warrant issued for Putin and, more recently, Benjamin Netanyahu. “This is a huge deal! It sends a message that no one, not even heads of state, are above the law.” But of course, getting those warrants is just the first step. To actually arrest someone like Putin or Netanyahu is a whole other ball game. As everyone can see, when it comes to punishing atrocities like war crimes, those who should be held accountable can almost always flout international law.

It’s time to confront this plain question: Can we enforce a system of international justice that actually prevents leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli officials from continuing their brutal actions, such as committing war crimes, without facing consequences?

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: A WORK IN PROGRESS

The ICC, which became operational in 2002, has the authority to investigate, prosecute, and convict individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. Yet, as Shoot and Wittner point out, the enforcement of these laws is far more complicated than one might imagine. Despite the fact that 124 nations are signatories to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, the support of the world’s most powerful countries remains lukewarm at best.

One of the most pressing challenges for the ICC has been the refusal of major military powers, including the United States, Russia, and China, to fully support its efforts. The U.S., for instance, played a significant role in establishing the ICC but later withdrew its support under President George W. Bush, citing concerns about the court’s potential to prosecute American officials. This resistance continued under the Trump administration, which imposed sanctions on ICC officials and rejected the court’s authority, particularly when it came to investigating war crimes committed by U.S. military personnel.

But what does this refusal mean for global justice? Wittner argues that the ICC, while still in its early stages, represents an important step toward holding leaders accountable for their actions. Although progress has been slow, the fact that the court exists and is operational provides a means to at least attempt to bring war criminals to justice. However, it remains clear that the lack of support from powerful nations hinders the court’s effectiveness.

ARREST WARRANTS: THE CHALLENGE OF ENFORCEMENT

The ICC has issued arrest warrants for high-profile individuals like Putin and Israeli officials, accusing them of war crimes related to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine. These arrest warrants have generated global attention but enforcing them remains a significant challenge. Countries like South Africa, which are signatories to the Rome Statute, have faced tough decisions about whether to cooperate with the court or allow these officials to travel freely.

Take, for example, the case of Putin. After an arrest warrant was issued for him, Russia’s government strongly denounced the ICC’s actions. Russian officials even threatened to launch missile attacks on the court’s headquarters in The Hague, underscoring the high-stakes nature of these proceedings. As Wittner notes, such strong reactions from powerful governments show that the ICC’s work is not without impact. The mere issuance of an arrest warrant sends a message that even the most powerful leaders are not immune from legal consequences.

These arrest warrants have generated global attention but enforcing them remains a significant challenge. Unfortunately, the actual enforcement of these warrants remains elusive. Putin was scheduled to attend a summit in South Africa but faced the possibility of arrest under the Rome Statute. Ultimately, he avoided arrest by canceling the trip. Similarly, other leaders with arrest warrants hanging over them have managed to evade capture, despite the pressure from the ICC.

Mongolia, a state party to the ICC, recently allowed Putin to visit without arrest, which raised eyebrows within the international community. Shoot, who was at the Assembly of States Parties in The Hague, noted how awkward it was for the Mongolian representatives to justify their actions in light of the court’s expectations. This, she argues, highlights the tension between global governance and the sovereignty of nations.

THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS OF ACCOUNTABILITY

As Shoot and Wittner discuss, international law is constantly evolving, and the ICC is not without its shortcomings. In addition to prosecuting war crimes, the court is expanding its scope to include new crimes, such as slavery, ecocide, and environmental crimes. The inclusion of environmental damage as a war crime reflects the growing recognition of the intersection between environmental destruction and human rights violations.

But the court’s efforts are still marred by the challenge of gaining widespread cooperation. Nations often resist complying with the court’s requests for arrests or asset seizures, especially when the perpetrators are from powerful countries. For instance, Russia has used its influence to prevent the referral of Syria’s civil war crimes to the ICC, highlighting the difficulties of prosecuting officials from countries with veto power in the UN Security Council.

One of the most compelling aspects of this discussion is the role of reparations for victims. The ICC’s Trust Fund for Victims offers a unique opportunity for victims of war crimes to receive compensation, but the process is fraught with challenges. Many defendants in war crimes cases are indigent, meaning that the perpetrators themselves have no financial resources to compensate victims. As Shoot explains, this leaves the burden of paying reparations on states and non-state parties, such as the United States, which has contributed to the fund, despite not being a state party to the Rome Statute.

A HOPEFUL VISION: THE PROPOSAL FOR AN ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT

As the conversation unfolds, it becomes clear that international law is still a work in progress. While the ICC has made strides in prosecuting war crimes, it cannot operate in a vacuum. For true justice to be served, additional institutions may be needed. One such proposal is for an International Anti-Corruption Court (IACC) that would specifically target the illicit financial flows often linked to war crimes and other atrocities.

The idea of an IACC is still in its infancy but Shoot and Wittner both support the concept as a crucial step in closing gaps in international law. The court would focus on addressing the financial crimes that allow war criminals and corrupt leaders to thrive, often at the expense of their citizens. This would complement the work of the ICC and provide a more holistic approach to international justice.

THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: PROGRESS TO SPEED UP

The challenge of enforcing international law is formidable. Yet, as Wittner emphasizes, we have made significant strides in recent decades. The creation of the ICC, the recognition of personal criminal responsibility, and the growing focus on environmental crimes represent important milestones in the global struggle for justice.

However, the fight is far from over. Powerful countries continue to resist the jurisdiction of the ICC, and the lack of global enforcement mechanisms means that war criminals like Putin and Netanyahu are still free to roam. Yet, there is reason for hope. The growing involvement of grassroots organizations and international coalitions is pushing the boundaries of what is possible. It will take the combined efforts of governments, civil society, and institutions like the ICC to ensure that war criminals are held accountable. Let’s speed up this evolutionary progress.