ABSTRACT In international criminal law, it is common practice for courts to establish legal principles through their judicial decisions (judicial lawmaking). This procedure arises from the evolving character of international law and has been effectively employed by ad hoc criminal tribunals (particularly the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda). These tribunals have substantially advanced international criminal law by filling legal gaps and interpreting traditional legal principles. This paper investigates whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) may fulfil a comparable role, notwithstanding the stringent constraints established by the Rome Statute. Despite the ICC’s direct integration of fundamental principles such as nullum crimen sine lege, which constrains its judicial lawmaking power relative to its predecessors, this paper contends that the ICC possesses the capacity to evolve the law through judicial precedent. The ICC's exploitation of this potential is essential for deterring international crimes, averting impunity for perpetrators, and facilitating extensive inquiries into crimes against humanity.

The issue of state accountability for human rights violations remains a central concern within contemporary international law. While the international legal framework has progressively evolved to recognize and protect fundamental human rights, enforcement mechanisms against sovereign states often remain fragmented and politically constrained. This paper critically examines the legal principles, institutional mechanisms, and practical challenges involved in holding states accountable for violations of internationally recognized human rights norms. The study explores the inherent tension between state sovereignty and international human rights obligations, emphasizing how traditional notions of non-intervention have been reshaped by emerging doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It further analyzes the role of global and regional institutions, including the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Human Rights Council, in promoting accountability and ensuring compliance with international standards. Through doctrinal analysis and case studies—such as allegations of torture linked to the United States and the international response to the Rwandan Genocide—the paper highlights both the progress and limitations of international accountability mechanisms. It also evaluates the concept of state responsibility, the duty to prosecute, and the effectiveness of enforcement tools such as economic sanctions and international adjudication. The research concludes that while significant advancements have been made in codifying human rights norms and establishing accountability frameworks, substantial gaps remain in implementation due to political interests, lack of universal jurisdiction, and enforcement challenges. Strengthening international cooperation, enhancing institutional independence, and reinforcing legal obligations are essential to ensure that states are held accountable for human rights violations in a consistent and effective manner. Keywords: State Accountability; Human Rights Violations; International Law; State Responsibility; Duty to Prosecute; Sovereignty; Responsibility to Protect; International Justice; Genocide; Torture; Economic Sanctions; Universal Jurisdiction; Rule of Law; Global Governance; Human Rights Protection.

This article explores the evolution of the feminist movement, examining its influence on the development of international legal norms and institutions, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations, which has integrated gender perspectives into its mandates. By analyzing the intersection of feminist theory and international law, the article highlights significant legal milestones achieved by feminist advocates, such as the establishment of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the inclusion of sexual violence in international humanitarian law. Furthermore, it addresses the critical role of feminist legal scholars and activists in advocating for gender justice and the protection of women’s rights on the global stage. This article seeks to provide an overview of the feminist movement’s influence on international law, exploring its impact on global human rights norms, the evolution of gender equality policies, and its contributions to international criminal justice. The scope of this article encompasses an examination of key developments, ongoing challenges, and potential future directions for advancing women’s rights in the context of a globalizing world.

ABSTRACT Small Island Developing States (SIDS), exemplified by Jamaica, are disproportionately vulnerable to large-scale environmental destruction stemming from resource extraction, particularly from powerful multinational corporations (MNCs) operating within fragile, high-biodiversity ecosystems. This vulnerability is acutely compounded by the existential threat of catastrophic events like the 2025 Category 5 Hurricane Melissa which devastated the island. In the ongoing absence of a codified crime of ecocide under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), SIDS confront an acute legal-normative vacuum. This article interrogates how Jamaica, specifically, can legally protect itself from systematic environmental destruction, defined as de facto ecocide, given the limitations of binding international law and, crucially, the fact that Jamaica is not a State Party to the ICC.

The issue of selectivity in the prosecution of international crimes remains a crucial problem in the global criminal justice system. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) through the Rome Statute aims to enforce accountability and eliminate impunity for perpetrators of serious international crimes, particularly war crimes, but in its implementation the ICC is often considered not to have applied law enforcement evenly. This study aims to examine the characteristics of selectivity in the prosecution of war crimes by the ICC, the factors that influence it, and its impact on the legitimacy of global justice. This study employed a normative legal method with statutory and case analysis approaches. The results of the study show that selectivity in prosecution is influenced by limitations in jurisdictional authority, the application of the principle of complementarity, the ICC’s dependence on state cooperation, and international political dynamics, especially those related to the role of the United Nations Security Council. These conditions are reflected in the tendency for case handling to focus on certain regions and countries, while similar alleged violations involving countries with major political influence are rarely processed to the prosecution stage. These findings indicate that selectivity in prosecution has implications for declining trust in the ICC and has the potential to weaken the effectiveness of international criminal law enforcement. Thus, this study affirms that the legitimacy of global criminal justice depends greatly on consistency, independence, and equality in the enforcement of international law.

The armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine has given rise to various allegations of war crimes that have attracted the attention of the international community, particularly regarding the effectiveness of international criminal law enforcement. Although Russia is not a state party to the 1998 Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court (ICC) still has an important role in prosecuting perpetrators of international crimes. This study aims to analyze the application of ICC jurisdiction to alleged war crimes in the Russia–Ukraine conflict even though Russia is not a state party to the Rome Statute, as well as to identify the juridical and political challenges in the enforcement of international criminal law. This study employed a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The results show that the ICC still has a basis for jurisdiction through the territorial principle based on Ukraine’s ad hoc declaration pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, as well as through the principle of complementarity, which places the ICC as the last resort when a state is unable or unwilling to enforce the law effectively. However, the implementation of such jurisdiction faces various challenges, including jurisdictional limitations over non-state parties, dependence on international cooperation, issues of immunity of state officials, global political dynamics, evidentiary constraints in situations of armed conflict, as well as the not yet optimal universalization of the Rome Statute. These findings indicate that the effectiveness of international criminal law enforcement in the Russia–Ukraine conflict depends not only on the ICC’s normative legitimacy, but also on political support and the commitment of the international community to preventing impunity for war crimes.

ABSTRACT This study examines the responsibility of foreign fighters who are nationals of state parties to the Rome Statute for crimes committed during the Syrian civil war and assesses the prospects for their prosecution before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Mechanisms of the United Nations have documented war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide committed in Syria, particularly the 2014 attacks against the Yazidi community. However, national accountability efforts remain inconsistent. Many states have contributed to a de facto zone of impunity by refusing to repatriate foreign fighters and resorting to administrative measures, such as deprivation of nationality. In Syria, the transitional governance structure led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham(HTS) risks further entrenching impunity by integrating foreign fighters into administrative and military institutions. The increase in HTS-led attacks in January 2026 has heightened the likelihood that Islamic State of Iraq and Sham-affiliated detainees currently held by the Syrian Democratic Forces may fall under HTS control. This study argues that, pursuant to Article 12(2)(b) of the Rome Statute, the ICC possesses limited but legally binding jurisdiction over nationals of states parties and should be regarded as a complementary justice mechanism in situations where domestic courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute.

ABSTRACT The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a humanitarian aid distribution mechanism supported by Israel and operated by US-based private contractors, that operated in Gaza between 26 May and October 2025 has raised critical concerns about the compliance of its assistance and organizational policy with the fundamental principles of humanitarian aid. Incidents including the inadequate and ineffective distribution of aid through selective and restricted access, as well as the complicity with Israeli authorities, have revealed that GHF has become an instrument of structural violence, reinforcing a regime of deprivation that may give rise to atrocity crimes under international law. In this regard, the current paper examines how GHF's operations become a tool of weaponisation of humanitarian aid in light of international humanitarian law and international criminal law, with particular reference to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It conducts an extensive thematic analysis of the reports published by the main international humanitarian organisations working in Gaza. In this way, the study contributes to the bourgeoning literature on the weaponisation of humanitarian aid at the nexus of international humanitarian law, international criminal law and the operations of international humanitarian organisations.

Abstract This paper examines the 2016 trial of Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi by the International Criminal Court (ICC) through the lenses of discourse analysis and linguistic anthropology, with a focus on how trial actors navigated legitimacy challenges. Al Mahdi, a member of Ansar Dine, was charged with the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu, which were UNESCO World Heritage sites. This paper argues that the trial actors used a rhetorical “local-to-global parallelism” which sought to consolidate a global range of constituencies and legitimate the ICC’s actions both normatively and sociologically. The local-to-global parallelism served to “talk into existence” a broad-based victimhood, which reinforced the court’s symbolic authority and its claims to jurisdiction. It also relied heavily on intertextual connections between the ICC and UNESCO, thereby legitimating the prosecution of cultural heritage destruction as a grave international crime.

Abstract The global order is undergoing significant transformations with far-reaching implications for international criminal justice. These shifts pose an existential challenge to core crimes accountability while re-shaping its pursuit. As the liberal order recedes, the International Criminal Court (ICC) faces a crisis driven by absolute sovereignty’s reassertion, weakened multilateral governance and increasing political and coercive pressures from powerful states. Simultaneously, these developments promote decentralised accountability, fostering the emergence of a polycentric system of international criminal justice. Trends in re-nationalisation, hybridisation and regionalisation align accountability with a more pluralistic, fluid global order. In this context, the ICC is not obsolete but requires a redefined role. While no longer the apex of international criminal justice, its existence remains crucial to addressing the risks of decentralised accountability. The Court, particularly its Office of the Prosecutor, should reconfigure strategies around positive complementarity, repositioning itself as a co-ordinating hub within this polycentric system.

Abstract Victim participation in criminal justice is usually studied as a legal right, a democratic opportunity, or a restorative justice measure. Drawing on evidence from the International Criminal Court’s victim engagement in Kenya and Uganda, I instead conceptualize victim participation as a form of unpaid labour. Building on Marxist-feminist theory, I argue that we do not usually recognize victims’ labour because of the ‘who’ (victims), the ‘what’ (participation) and the ‘why’ (justice) of victim participation. I then make the case for why we should pay ‘wages for victim participation’, drawing on the Wages for Housework campaign of the 1970s, not only to compensate victims for their labour time but also to open a broader political perspective on life-making, work and justice.

‘It’s always going to be a challenge’: A Conversation on Sanctions, Pressure on the International Criminal Court and the Future of International Criminal Justice

The jurisdictional limits of the international criminal court in prosecuting non-member states

The transformation of contemporary warfare through rapid technological advancement has led to the emergence of cyber warfare as a dominant domain of international conflict. Unlike traditional armed conflicts, cyber operations are conducted within an intangible digital environment; however, their consequences extend beyond cyberspace, often resulting in significant and sometimes irreversible damage to the natural environment. This evolving form of warfare presents complex legal and practical challenges, particularly in relation to the identification of perpetrators, attribution of responsibility, and the application of existing international legal frameworks. This study critically examines the environmental implications of cyber warfare within the context of international law, with a particular focus on the adequacy of current legal norms in addressing environmental harm caused by cyber operations. It explores the conceptual foundations of cyber warfare, distinguishing it from conventional and network-based conflicts, and analyzes the mechanisms through which cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure—such as energy systems, water resources, and industrial facilities—can generate severe environmental consequences, including pollution, ecosystem degradation, and long-term ecological disruption. The research further evaluates the principles governing international responsibility, both civil and criminal, for environmental damage resulting from cyber warfare. Particular attention is given to the challenges of attribution in cyberspace, where anonymity, technological complexity, and the involvement of non-state actors hinder the effective enforcement of legal accountability. The study also examines the relevance of existing international legal instruments, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Tallinn Manual 2.0, highlighting their limitations in addressing the unique characteristics of cyber-induced environmental harm. The findings reveal that while current international legal frameworks provide a general foundation for regulating cyber warfare, they remain insufficient to fully address its environmental consequences. The study concludes that there is an urgent need for the development of more specialized legal norms, enhanced international cooperation, and the integration of environmental protection principles into cyber governance strategies. Strengthening attribution mechanisms, expanding the scope of international criminal law to include emerging environmental cybercrimes, and promoting preventive cybersecurity measures are identified as key priorities for ensuring effective protection of environmental rights in the digital age.

This article examines how transitional justice frameworks can inform climate reparations debates. Drawing on lessons from international criminal and human rights courts, as well as non-judicial reparation programs, it highlights the importance of victim participation, multifaceted redress, and credible guarantees of non-repetition in designing effective reparative mechanisms for climate harms. The analysis looks beyond State-to-State obligations to consider reparations owed to individuals, communities and ecosystems, including through ecocentric approaches and the potential criminalisation of ecocide. It argues that, while transitional justice cannot resolve the climate crisis, it offers guidance for designing reparative mechanisms that are participatory, multi-layered and credible.

Since its foundation, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has received many questions about its legitimacy, specifically considering the additional level of supranational protection granted to the core crimes contained in the Rome Statute. This paper aims to analyse the legitimacy of this additional level of supranational protection conferred on only four core crimes and denied to all others by investigating what qualifies a crime as a core crime and whether the list should be limited to only the four core crimes currently under the Rome Statute. Specifically, the paper will discuss whether the crime of drug trafficking should be included under the jurisdiction of the ICC. It will do this by addressing the research question: are the currently selected core crimes under the Rome Statute justified in receiving an additional level of supranational protection, and should drug trafficking be granted similar status under the ICC? Through a discussion of the legal definition of core crimes and a historical account of the creation of the Rome Statute, the paper argues for a special character of the four core crimes currently under the Statute that warrants an additional level of supranational protection. Further, through historical, formal, and normative arguments the paper makes a case for the inclusion of the crime of drug trafficking under the Rome Statute and for a re-examination of the criteria for amending the Statute to provide a clear legal definition of core crime.

Human-induced environmental decline poses an existential threat to the peace, security, and well-being of the world. This crisis has intensified calls for the international legal system to assume a more proactive role in confronting the causes of environmental degradation. In this context, the International Criminal Court (ICC), grounded in its mandate over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, has emerged as a potential forum for imposing accountability on the political, commercial, and military authors of environmental destruction. Despite the exigency of the situation, international criminal law lacks a substantive legal framework that is properly calibrated to address environmental harms. Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute directly addresses wartime environmental damage, but conditions liability on exacting thresholds of damage and disproportionality such that it offers little, if any, protection to environmental interests. During peacetime, international criminal law recognises environmental harm only insofar as it is incidental to a humanitarian atrocity, but not as an independent concern. Framing environmental liability through this anthropocentric lens not only neglects the full extent of environmental destruction from a wide range of human practices but also embeds the reductive normative position that environmental concerns are marginal to human interests. Recognising that human and environmental interests are interdependent, this article argues that effective protection relies on a mechanism of environmental liability divorced from anthropocentric constraints.

Since the outbreak of the current armed conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine, both States have actively pursued nominations to the World Heritage List established by the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Both Palestine and Ukraine have relied on emergency procedures to nominate certain sites, while simultaneously inscribing several other properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger. As the destruction of such cultural and natural heritage would be an impoverishment for the international community as a whole, this article will assess the influence that inscription on the World Heritage List has on the conviction of an individual for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to art or historic monuments that are inscribed on the List. It will first focus on the existing jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia regarding the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against cultural property, before evaluating the current developments in Ukraine and Palestine concerning the inscription of World Heritage sites threatened by the ongoing conflicts.

ABSTRACT The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte under an International Criminal Court warrant and his subsequent detention appear to have amplified his popular appeal among Filipino publics. This article unpacks Duterte's enduring popularity by analysing how Filipino cultural values reinforce populist and nationalist narratives, particularly during moments of political crisis. We focus on how utang na loob (debt of gratitude) has been mobilised to defend Duterte and critique the Marcos administration. Our findings suggest that Duterte's supposed policy legacy and his performative political will forged a social contract many Filipinos view as having delivered tangible benefits. Within the Filipino moral economy of reciprocity, such gains engender expectations of loyalty. The Philippine example illustrates how morally charged populist and nationalist discourses can frame political allegiances that resist scrutiny and international accountability.

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of appellate mechanisms in ad hoc tribunals (the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) and the International Criminal Court. It examines the evolution of appellate proceedings, grounds for appeal, scope of review (de novo in ad hoc tribunals versus limited review of errors in the ICC), procedural features, and their impact on the effectiveness of international criminal justice. Particular attention is paid to the role of appeal in ensuring fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and complementarity. The relevance of the topic is emphasised in the context of contemporary conflicts, particularly the ICC investigations into crimes associated with the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The practice of key cases (Tadić, Akayesu, Lubanga, Bemba, Al-Senussi, Katanga, Ngudjolo Chui) is analysed, illustrating common features (independence of chambers, right to appeal) and differences in mechanisms. The experience of ad hoc tribunals significantly influenced the formation of the Rome Statute norms, contributing to the unification of jurisprudence and overcoming impunity. The comparative analysis indicates the evolutionary development of appellate proceedings: from reactive and broad mechanisms of temporary tribunals focused on specific conflicts to limited but more effective and universal procedures of a permanent court. The experience of ad hoc tribunals substantially shaped the Rome Statute norms, particularly regarding standards of fair trial, protection of the rights of the accused and victims, and unification of jurisprudence. For Ukraine, integration of ICC appellate principles into national legislation is recommended to ensure effective investigation of international crimes.