International Criminal Justice Case Analysis

Owing to the complexity of nowadays’ geopolitical system and international relations, the ICC encounters challenges in fulfilling its juridical exercise. However, in this essay, one will argue that despite structural and institutional difficulties, the ICC represents a tool adapted to nowadays’ context and by doing so, encourages countries to rely on it as an effective instrument to exercise international criminal justice.

Argument 1:

The ICC is not geographically limited; it is a rule rather than an exception. This allows it to operate in all possible conflicts without an excessively costly and slow organisation. Thus, by working in the present, its deterrent function is made much stronger as it constantly makes examples for dictators who

Because they also ‘involve substantial costs and delays’, their deterrent effect was also narrowed, as the author points out . In contrast, the ICC’s power and effectiveness are strengthened by its statute as a permanent Court, which can operate all over the world and whenever needed. Andrea Birdsall is nevertheless suspicious about this legitimacy and right to intervene in on-going conflicts as she raises the question of peace versus justice. She for instance states that ‘the difficulty lies in determining what functions can actually be fulfilled by an international institution in times of ongoing crisis. This links to the debate of peace versus justice and the question whether justice can be achieved before peace has been established? ’ . To that issue Philippe Kirsch seems to provide a solution by referring a special case, which illustrates the ICC’s abilities. The writer shows how in Uganda, the functioning of the ICC

As Kirsch points out, it is a ‘court of last resort’, which respects states’ sovereignty as if a country is able to exercise justice itself the ICC is not to intervene . Thus, it is not imposing a Western model worldwide, nor a victors’ justice, as in Nuremberg. Besides, the disparities of power between states do not affect the ICC as more powerful states do not have more influence on its functioning. For instance, as Koh points out when referring to the ambivalence of the United States (US) toward the ICC, the hostility of the US toward the Court did not make it unable to develop itself. Indeed, ‘In 2002, Under Secretary of State John Bolton announced that the United States did not intend to become a party to the treaty. The United States entered a period that many would characterize as overtly hostile to the Court, but the Court began to establish itself nonetheless’ . The ICC is thus independent from very powerful countries’ influence, which increases its legitimacy and thus indirectly its