What the International Criminal Court Can — and Can't — Do

The International Criminal Court was created to end impunity for the world's worst crimes — genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Two decades on, it has secured convictions and shaped global norms, but it remains one of the most misunderstood institutions in international law.

The Court's founding premise was radical: that individuals, including heads of state, could be held criminally accountable by an international tribunal. Turning that premise into practice has proven far harder than drafting it.

What the ICC can do

The Court can investigate and prosecute the gravest international crimes when national courts are unwilling or unable to act. Its landmark cases have included convictions of warlords and militia leaders, establishing that atrocities carry personal criminal liability. Its investigations alone can alter the calculations of would-be perpetrators.

The Court's jurisdiction covers crimes committed on the territory of member states or by their nationals, plus situations referred by the UN Security Council. Over 120 countries are members — a broad base, but with glaring absences among the most powerful states.

What it cannot do

The ICC has no police force. It depends entirely on states to arrest suspects — and states often refuse, especially when the accused is an ally or a sitting leader. High-profile arrest warrants have gone unenforced for years, exposing the gap between legal authority and practical power.

Major powers outside the Court's membership reject its jurisdiction over their nationals, and the Security Council referral mechanism that could bridge the gap is itself subject to veto. The result is an uneven justice that critics call selective — pursuing the weak while the strong remain beyond reach.

• The ICC prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
• It relies on member states for arrests — it has no police of its own.
• Major powers are not members, limiting its reach over the powerful.

One of the Court's more innovative features is the formal role given to victims, who can participate in proceedings and claim reparations through a dedicated trust fund. In practice, delivering reparations — funded largely by voluntary contributions — has been slow and under-resourced. Yet the principle matters: international justice is increasingly understood not only as punishing perpetrators but as acknowledging those who suffered.

Justice, imperfect but real

Measured against the ambition of ending impunity, the ICC falls short. Measured against the historical alternative — no accountability at all — it represents genuine progress. Its norms now shape national laws, military doctrines, and the expectations of victims worldwide.

International justice was never going to be tidy. The Court's struggles reflect the world as it is, not the law as it should be.