Human trafficking constitutes one of the most serious and systematic forms of transnational crime in the era of globalization. Indonesia, as a country of origin, transit, and destination for human trafficking, faces complex challenges in enforcing international criminal law. This study aims to normatively analyze the legal position of human trafficking as a transnational crime from the perspective of international criminal law, while evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of Law Number 21 of 2007 on the Eradication of the Crime of Trafficking in Persons in Indonesia. Employing a statute approach and a conceptual approach, this study finds a significant gap between international legal norms as stipulated in the Palermo Protocol 2000 and Indonesia's domestic regulations, particularly regarding the definition of victims, recovery mechanisms, and inter-agency coordination. The novelty of this research lies in the identification of three structural weaknesses in the implementation of the Anti-Trafficking Law: (1) normative ambiguity in defining exploitation; (2) weak restitution and compensation mechanisms for victims; and (3) institutional misalignment between central and regional Anti-Trafficking Task Forces. This study recommends a partial revision of the Anti-Trafficking Law and strengthening of vertical-horizontal coordination among law enforcement agencies.

The article is devoted to the study of the role of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine as a subject of the state's foreign criminal-legal policy. Foreign criminal-legal policy is considered as a system of strategic actions aimed at harmonizing national legislation with international standards, effectively countering transnational crime and strengthening Ukraine's positions in the global legal space. The author analyzes the evolution of the approaches of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to the correlation of constitutional guarantees of human rights and international obligations of Ukraine in the field of criminal law. Although the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is not formally a subject of policy formation (unlike the legislative and executive branches), through the exercise of constitutional control it performs the function of an institutional «filter»: it determines the limits of permissible criminalization, adjusts the directions of implementation of international treaties and balances public interest with human rights. Particular attention is paid to the divergent and individual opinions of judges, primarily S. Holovaty, who propose a doctrinally balanced integrative approach: interpretation of the norms of the Constitution in the light of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, Art. 9 of the Constitution of Ukraine and international practice, which allows combining the protection of fundamental rights with the effective implementation of anti-corruption and human rights obligations. The conclusions of the article indicate a gradual shift of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine from isolationism to integration, which reflects the adaptation of constitutional justice to the European vector of Ukraine. At the same time, the inconsistency of practice emphasizes the need for consistent consideration of international standards as a component of the national legal order. Keywords: Constitutional Court of Ukraine, foreign criminal law policy, constitutional isolationism, legal integration, international criminal law standards, European integration, decision, subject.

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.

This article discusses the challenges of establishing responsibility for the crime of aggression within the framework of international criminal law. Special attention is given to the commission of the crime of aggression through cyberattacks – that is, to cyber aggression. In addition, the article explores the possibility of aggression being considered a continuing crime. By analyzing the elements of Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute, the author concludes that the legal construction provided in Article 8 bis significantly complicates its application to acts of cyber aggression. At the same time, the author argues for both the possibility and even the necessity of including cyber‑based acts of aggression under the crime of aggression, taking into account modern security threats.

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.

The article is devoted to the study of understanding the nature, status, structure and, mainly, the functional significance of the history of criminal law as a specific field of scholar theoretical-legal knowledge. In this context its axiological, methodological, ontological, epistemological, and ethical essence are mentioned, each one is accompanied by author’s argumentation and explanations of the arguments put forward. Within the framework of this problem, the main stages of development, the essence of numerous academic views, ideas, approaches of representatives of various areas of legal science, underlying the discussion on this, were not left without attention. By means of numerous techniques and methods of cognition, including analysis, synthesis, formal logical, comparative, functional and systemic methods, the author presents the characteristics of the elements of scholar knowledge of the history of criminal law. It, taking into account the research issues being solved in the cognition of individual branch components of the legal heritage of the past, includes: a) history of military criminal law; b) history of canonical criminal law; c) history of (customary) folk criminal law and of international criminal law; d) comparative history of criminal law; d) history of legal technique in the field of criminal legislation; e) history of the science of criminal law. In process of studying theoretical and methodological nuances of the history of criminal law and formation of an idea of it, author came to the conclusion that, due to the features mentioned above, it is an integral component of historical jurisprudence, that in turn is a sub-branch of historical and legal science, and not the science of criminal law, while possessing its distinctive subject uniqueness and specific features. It is explained by its inseparable connection with historical processes of development of human society, both legal and cultural, socio-economic, ethnic and other properties, but also necessarily by the nature of the source study base used in this regard, as well as the methodology of its cognition, which to a greater extent certainly has a historical and legal basis.

ABSTRACT This lecture speaks about remembrance, about how we remember and, mostly, about how we forget features of the slave trade – to our peril, and to that of the international community. Such forgetting or obliteration of the past denigrates our perceptions of the present. However, whatever is obliterated by memory never really disappears. It submerges, then resurfaces. It re-emerges with sturdy determination to carve and sculpt our current existence. Hence, this lecture is entitled ‘The Re-emergence of the (Internal) Slave Trade’. These remarks largely derive from the author’s persistent delving into international criminal law as a practitioner, a scholar and as an eternal student. They also emanate from her voice, as a descendant of enslaved ancestors.

The emergence of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) poses unprecedented challenges to international humanitarian law (IHL), particularly in relation to criminal responsibility. This article critically examines the existing legal vacuum concerning accountability for violations committed by AWS in the context of armed conflict. By analyzing the fluid and evolving nature of military autonomy and the consequences of removing human oversight from lethal decision-making processes, the article undertakes an in-depth assessment of international criminal law (ICL) mechanisms, including direct and command responsibility. It demonstrates the inadequacy of established legal doctrines to attribute criminal liability to designers, programmers, operators, or commanders when AWS operate through autonomous decision-making. The article further highlights the unreliability and unpredictability of AWS, especially in offensive warfare, and questions whether current criminal law standards are capable of addressing the complexity introduced by machine-directed hostilities. Engaging with theoretical constructs such as moral programming and joint criminal enterprise, the analysis concludes that, in the absence of a universally agreed definition and a comprehensive international regulatory framework, meaningful accountability remains beyond reach. The article ultimately calls for urgent international cooperation and innovative developments in criminal law to safeguard human rights and uphold the fundamental principles of IHL in the age of autonomous warfare.

Abstract This article examines the return of a long-forgotten war crime of forced conscription in international criminal law (ICL) by providing a critical overview of emerging domestic case law in Ukrainian courts stemming from the decade-long Russo–Ukrainian war. More specifically, it offers an in-depth legal analysis of a forced conscription case arising from occupied Crimea prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Following the occupation of Crimea, the Russian occupation authorities have organized numerous conscription campaigns targeting Crimean residents for military service in the Russian army under Russian law. Although Ukrainian domestic courts have delivered over 100 war crimes judgments since the very beginning of the war, this is the first case on the war crime of forced conscription to reach the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the first case of its kind since World War II. This case is pivotal, as it provides an elaborate interpretation of the crime of forced conscription as applied by national courts and is built almost entirely on open-source evidence, showing a fundamental shift in how evidence for war crimes trials is collected in relation to atrocity crimes committed in occupied territories.

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.

ABSTRACT This is an edited version of the keynote address given at the ‘Abolition and International Criminal Law’ workshop, held at RMIT University in Naarm / Melbourne, in June 2024. This edited keynote is an iteration of my thinking and previous work, made specific for the audience of the workshop and Special Issue.

ABSTRACT This article examines how international criminal law (ICL) concepts, particularly the doctrine of Command Responsibility (CR), can shape domestic prosecutorial strategies in Sri Lanka, despite the absence of formal incorporation of ICL into its legal system. Using several recent indictments filed by the Attorney General as central examples of this prosecutorial strategy, it analyses how prosecutors have relied on domestic liability theories to approximate the attribution of responsibility to high-ranking officials. Through doctrinal analysis, case review, and insights from prosecutorial interviews, the author argues that while Sri Lanka’s legal framework does not explicitly recognize CR, its core elements can be adapted to support accountability for systemic crimes. The article explores how existing provisions of the Penal Code, combined with interpretative practices and an openness to ICL principles, offer a pragmatic, if still evolving, pathway to bridge a domestic accountability gap.

The continuous deepening of digital globalization has normalized data cross-border flow. Data sovereignty, as the core extension and important component of national sovereignty in the digital era, has gained increasing strategic significance However, countries' divergent history, culture, legal traditions and development stages lead to differentiated data jurisdiction rules, which intensify cross-border data sovereignty conflicts and pose severe challenges to transnational cybercrime governance Focusing on this core background, this article, from the intersection of international criminal law governance and cyber information law, explores their logical connections in legislative concepts, rule application and implementation mechanisms, and analyzes practical pain points and key issues in transnational cybercrime governance. It further proposes targeted solutions: clarifying jurisdictional basis via rule alignment, unifying electronic evidence standards and liability boundaries, improving the international convention system through mechanism coordination, establishing a rapid information sharing and dispute resolution platform, deepening transnational law enforcement cooperation, and building a full-chain prevention system via technological empowerment, so as to boost global digital governance effectiveness.

The article analyzes the impact of the rapid development of artificial intelligence systems and autonomous technologies on criminal-legal relations, as well as the place and role of artificial intelligence and technologies operating on its basis in the field of criminal-legal regulation and related current problems. In addition, socially dangerous acts involving artificial intelligence are classified into three groups, with the role of artificial intelligence as a tool of crime, as well as cases related to its independent decision-making, being considered separately. The work proposes defining the legal status of artificial intelligence as a quasi-subject and examines the concept of technological co-participation. The necessity of unifying international criminal law in the context of digital transformation, as well as ensuring a balance between technological progress and the protection of human rights, is substantiated.

This article examines how artificial intelligence (AI) challenges and transforms domestic and international criminal law. Traditional doctrines of liability, rooted in human intent and voluntary action, are destabilized by autonomous systems that can act independently of direct human control. The paper identifies thirteen emerging areas where AI creates new crimes or reshapes existing ones, including deepfakes, automated fraud, algorithmic discrimination, cyberattacks, and election manipulation. It also explores unresolved issues such as AI personhood, distributed liability, and accountability in health care, space, and warfare. The analysis underscores the urgent need for legal adaptation to ensure fairness, responsibility, and deterrence.

Within the framework of international criminal law, the International Criminal Court (ICC) plays a pivotal role in tackling gender-based crimes and advancing women’s dignity. This paper critically examines the ICC’s increasing efforts to combat sexual, reproductive, and other forms of gender-based violence, focusing particularly on the Office of the Prosecutor’s 2023 Policy on Gender-Based Crimes and related ICC case law.

International criminal law has played a pivotal role in addressing atrocities, yet it has often failed to fully confront systemic discrimination against marginalized groups. The legacy of the Nuremberg Trials - widely recognized as the foundation for modern international justice - offers a striking example. Although the Roma were among those persecuted by the Nazi regime through internment, forced sterilization, and extermination, their suffering was notably absent from the indictments and legal narratives produced by the Tribunal.

This paper will review the practicality, need and difficulty of introducing the crime of Ecocide in the Rome Statute of the international criminal court (ICC). Continuing the definition of legal practices suggested by the Independent Expert Panel (2021) and relying on the recent scholarly discussion, the proposed study critically examines the key features, legal aspects, and suggestion of the possible location of Ecocide in the system of international criminal law. It suggests an actual, multi-staged, multi-pronged action plan of developing Ecocide legal recognition, the argument being that its incorporation is both a vital expansion of international environmental law but a pressing necessity to global ecological justice. The suggested course of action consists of three actions running parallel: development of an international statute, Ecocide Convention, and development of regional statutes, Ecocide. This is a multi-track route, a combination of ambition and pragmatism, with the goal of achieving consensus, developing the necessary legal and institutional capacity and creating complementary normative schemes that may ultimately be unified to transform the Ecocide as a fundamental international crime.

The issue of universal jurisdiction continues to be one of the most disputed doctrines in international criminal law, and to be sure, this is mostly based on its clash with the sovereignty principle of states. On the one hand, this jurisdiction aims at no impunity for serious international crimes; on the other, one of the problems it faces is the overreach of jurisdiction. The research looks into where and to what extent the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is able to reconcile universal jurisdiction and state sovereignty. By means of three principal conflict dimensions (jurisdictional, legislative, and practical issues), the paper examines the degree to which these tensions are revealed both in theoretical approaches and the real world. Through an analysis of legal doctrine and key case studies, the study concludes that the Rome Statute does not technically introduce universal jurisdiction. It produces, however, an almost equivalent functional effect via the complementarity mechanism, granting the ICC power to act only when national courts are not prepared or competent to execute authentic prosecutions. This mechanism is implemented through the admissibility assessments in Articles 1719, which determine the genuineness and consequently the meaning of the domestic trials, and also the Pre-Trial Chamber oversight that ensures the respect of state authority in the prosecutorial decisions. Furthermore, the complementarity is supported by procedural safeguards. All the safeguards demonstrate that the ICC operates as a cooperative partner rather than a opposition to the national courts. However, the existence of enforcement gaps, inconsistent state cooperation, and political interference continues to hinder the process.

The concept of international criminal law has developed rapidly. The emergence of relevant institutions-from the ad hoc tribunals of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC)-has enhanced governance measures to address transnational atrocities, but it has also led to fragmentation characterized by normative conflicts, functional overlaps and enforcement gaps. With globalization, the disintegration of the international criminal law undermines the global governance. This paper examines particular expressions of fragmentation at rule, institutional, jurisdiction, and implementation levelsand evaluates the adverse effects of fragmentation on enforcement effectiveness, coordinated governance and international fairness. In this paper, the comparative research approach is adopted to prove such issues as treatsy-based discrepancies in crime definitions, judicial inconsistencies due to inconsistent enforcement of soft and hard law, selective prosecution due to jurisdictional conflicts and accountability gaps in new fields of cybercrime and AI-driven offenses. To control these concerns, the proposals comprise developing the bodies of authority to interpret the soft law, quickening the process of the soft law being converted to hard law by instituting regional pilot programs, the adoption of the tiered jurisdiction system, homogenizing evidence, and introducing the global level of training. The goals of these strategies are to overcome interpretative disagreements, increase cooperation internationally, revitalize judicial fairness and promote equity of international criminal law.