Partners in Prosecuting Crime: Do Victims Benefit from a Division of Labor between the International Criminal Court and the State?

Abstract

This article critically evaluates the collaboration between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and some States in prosecuting international crimes from a victim's perspective. Intended to intervene only where States are either unable or unwilling to do so, the International Criminal Court has instead asked States to transfer several alleged perpetrators who were already facing charges of international crimes at the domestic level. This strategy has unintended negative consequences on the availability of remedies for those victimized by international crimes. Indeed, victims of crimes the accused has allegedly committed but is not being prosecuted for by the ICC are deprived of an effective remedy, both at the national or international level. More broadly, the burden-sharing policy of the ICC paradoxically fosters a new type of unwillingness (or at least passivity) in the head of the collaborating State to take seriously the fight against impunity for mass atrocities at the domestic level. As a consequence, the ICC may currently well undermine its intent to enhance access of victims to a remedy for international crimes.