This study examines the protection of international humanitarian law for child victims of sexual violence in Sudan's armed conflict, particularly in the context of the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) since April 2023. Using normative legal research methods with legislative, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study analyzes applicable international legal instruments, international criminal tribunal jurisprudence, and available law enforcement mechanisms. The results of the study show two main findings. First, the normative framework of international humanitarian law including the 1998 Rome Statute, the 1949 Geneva Convention, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Security Council Resolutions have provided a juridically adequate legal basis for establishing criminal accountability against RSF perpetrators through the ICC mechanism based on the referral jurisdiction of Resolution 1593 (2005), as reinforced by the precedent of the Ali Kushayb ruling (October 2025). Second, effective protection for child victims of sexual violence faces serious implementation gaps due to four structural barriers: state non-cooperation in the execution of arrest warrants, limitations of UN Security Council mechanisms, barriers to proof on the ground, and the inadequacy of Sudan's national justice system. The study concludes that the continued impunity is not a reflection of the inadequacy of legal norms, but rather a failure of the political will of the international community to implement them consistently.

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.

Environmental degradation has intensified in scale, complexity, and long-term impact, revealing the structural limitations of traditional environmental governance models. Although India has developed an extensive constitutional and statutory framework for environmental protection, large-scale ecological destruction continues to be addressed predominantly through regulatory penalties, administrative sanctions, and compensatory mechanisms. Criminal accountability for grave environmental harm remains comparatively limited in scope and enforcement. The global discourse on “ecocide” proposes a paradigm shift by conceptualising severe, widespread, or long-term environmental damage as a serious criminal offence. Several jurisdictions have introduced ecocide-like provisions into domestic criminal law, while international advocacy continues to seek recognition of ecocide under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This emerging movement reflects a normative transition from regulatory environmentalism to criminal environmental justice. This article critically examines whether recognition of ecocide as a distinct criminal offence is necessary within the Indian legal framework. It analyses constitutional environmental jurisprudence, evaluates statutory mechanisms, examines ecocide-like incidents within India and abroad, and undertakes a comparative assessment of legislative developments in other jurisdictions. The article further explores institutional and doctrinal challenges that may arise in incorporating ecocide into Indian criminal law. It argues that while India’s environmental framework is progressive in constitutional principle, it remains largely remedial in operation. Recognition of ecocide could strengthen environmental justice, provided that legislative drafting is precise, institutional capacity is enhanced, and the reform is harmonised with constitutional safeguards and federal principles.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the unprecedented arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2023. The warrant, concerning war crimes involving the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia, represents a critical juncture for international law. The analys is begins by dissecting the ICC's contested jurisdictional basis. Since neither Russian or Ukraine are states parties to the Rome Statute, the Court's authority derives from Ukraine's ad hoc declarations accepting its jurisdiction, a mechanism under Article 12(3) of the Statute. This foundation is crucial for the Prosecutor's investigation, initiated following referrals from numerous member states. The article then scrutinizes the legal merits of the specific charges, arguing that focusing on the deportation of children provides a strong, legally clear case that is less susceptible to political accusations of being a "pretext" for invasion-related charges. A central tension explored is the clash between the principle of head-of-state immunity—a cornerstone of the West phalli an system of state sovereignty fiercely defended by Russia and others—and the emerging norm of international criminal accountability for core crimes. This is framed within scholarly debates and precedents, most notably the ICC's prior pursuit of Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, which exposed the immense enforcement challenges when a suspect remains within their own territory or enjoys powerful allies. Ultimately, the study concludes that while immediate enforce mentis improbable, the warrant's significance is profound. It serves as a powerful symbolic tool that diplomatically isolates a sitting head of state, establishes a historical record of criminality, and reinforces the principle that impunity for atrocity crimes is not absolute, there by straining but potentially strengthening the fragile framework of global justice.

Amidst significant geopolitical shifts, the need to restructure the rules-based international order becomes essential to preserving world peace, justice, and collaboration. According to this study, "Reforming the Rules-based International Order: Opportunities and Challenges in a Shifting Global Landscape", multilateral institutions must undergo strategic reforms in order to become more responsive to modern threats such as cybercrimes and climate change, as well as growing multipolarity and technological advancements. According to recent developments in international law and normative frameworks, the answer is yes, there are several options to improve institutional efficacy. Critically, the article highlights the difficulties caused by power imbalances in organizations such as the UN Security Council, where veto powers impede group efforts, as outlined in Chapter V of the UN Charter (Articles 23-32). Recent judicial decisions that uphold sovereignty and accountability shed light on reform opportunities. The International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Provisional Measures Order of 26 January 2024, for instance, mandates immediate humanitarian protections in the case of Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), illustrating the judiciary's role in upholding international humanitarian law during times of conflict. The Court's proactive approach to addressing violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention is further supported by a request for additional measures on May 10, 2024, and subsequent changes on March 28, 2024. From a diplomatic perspective, the paper emphasizes how new accords might help close governance gaps. Building on the UN Convention against Corruption, which was ratified in 2023–2024, the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, which was adopted by the General Assembly on December 24, 2024, via Resolution A/RES/79/243, is an important step in coordinating international responses to transnational threats. Echoing the tenets of the UN Charter's Chapter VI on pacific dispute settlement, the Pact for the Future, which includes the Global Digital Compact, is codified in A/RES/79/1 on September 22, 2024, and affirmatively pledges to inclusive multilateralism. As demonstrated by the World Trade Organization's (WTO) continuing dispute settlement changes, the discourse traverses obstacles including institutional inertia. By eliminating appellate body crises and improving trade equality, the Ministerial Decision on Dispute Settlement Reform of March 2, 2024, at MC13, moves the system closer to being completely operational by 2024. Applications for arrest warrants filed by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Situation in the State of Palestine on May 20, 2024, highlight Rome Statute responsibility and combat impunity in changing environments in the field of international criminal justice. Additionally, based on the ICJ's advisory procedures on climate commitments, which were sought in 2023 and are expected to deliver an opinion in 2025, this paper promotes proactive changes that favour sovereignty while promoting collective security in line with the execution of the Paris Agreement. By including these components, the study confirms that a reformed order may lessen difficulties such as geopolitical rivalry, guaranteeing a robust international system. There are chances to use agreements like the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to direct fair changes. Finally, this academic effort tactfully urges coordinated global action to achieve a more flexible, inclusive system that transcends present divisions and leads to long-term peace and prosperity.

This article discusses the characterization of the forced transfer of Ukrainian children by Russia as genocide. In March 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) classified the forced transfer of Ukrainian children to areas under Russian control as a war crime based on Articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the ICC Rome Statute. This article, based on evidence and statements from the parties involved in the conflict, demonstrates that, according to Article 2(e) of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Article 6(e) of the Rome Statute, Russia’s actions could also be classified as genocide. This is because the transfer was carried out without the children’s consent and forcibly (Actus reus). Furthermore, the perpetrators were aware of their criminal actions (Mens rea), and there was also a special intent to destroy, in part, Ukrainians as a national group (Dolus specialis). This article presents its content in three sections: Firstly, it outlines some of the most important facts related to the forced transfer of Ukrainian children. In the second section, the concept of the crime of forced transfer of children is discussed, and the Actus reus and Mens rea of this crime as genocide are analyzed Finally, the third section is dedicated to analyzing the possibility of classifying Russia’s actions as genocide.

Abstract This article examines whether the July 2024 crackdown on student-led protests in Bangladesh appears to meet the legal elements of crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. Using a doctrinal methodology, it interprets treaty provisions, the ICC Elements of Crimes, and relevant jurisprudence, applying them to patterns of conduct documented by triangulated public sources, including UN findings, domestic NGO reports, medical data, and open-source verification. The analysis addresses killings, arbitrary detention, torture, sexual and gender-based violence, persecution, enforced disappearance, and other inhumane acts, situating them within the contextual elements of ‘widespread or systematic attack’ and ‘State or organizational policy.’ It also considers ongoing proceedings before the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh, the 2024 statutory amendments, and procedural factors relevant to complementarity under Article 17. The article argues that the available evidence, if substantiated, indicates that several elements of crimes against humanity are plausibly met, particularly the requirements of a widespread or systematic attack and multiple underlying acts listed in Article 7. The aim is to clarify applicable legal standards and procedural challenges without pronouncing on individual criminal responsibility.

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.

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.

Abstract The Israel-Palestine conflict remains one of the most enduring and violent disputes in modern history, with renewed intensity following Hamas’ attacks and hostage-taking in October 2023 and Israel’s subsequent forceful military response in Gaza. This study critically investigates the efficacy of international legal instruments and institutions in safeguarding civilians amid escalating hostilities. Despite the existence of international treaties—including the Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute, Genocide Convention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and particularly the Responsibility to Protect ( R2P )—the widespread targeting of civilian infrastructure and non-combatants raises pressing questions about state accountability, proportionality, and the legality of collective punishment. Using cosmopolitanism as a theoretical lens, this research adopts a qualitative methodology comprising primary data from expert interviews and secondary sources such as legal documents, scholarly literature, and institutional reports. The study evaluates the roles and responses of key actors, including the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and global powers, in addressing the current crisis. Findings indicate a significant disjuncture between the normative commitments of international human rights frameworks and their enforcement in practice, especially when powerful states perpetrate violations. The research highlights institutional inertia, selective application of legal norms, and the declining credibility of global mechanisms like the R2P intended to protect civilians. The study concludes by underscoring the urgent need for systemic reforms to enhance institutional capacity, reinforce legal accountability, and reassert the normative centrality of civilian protection in international conflict governance.

In the context of global business operations, it has become a common practice for parent companies to manage overseas activities through their subsidiaries. Industries such as energy and financial services, due to their particular features, are more likely to be involved in overseas atrocities including human rights violations. Using the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court relevant court decisions and United Nations conventions as the main analytical framework, this paper examines how parent companies might face criminal liability through case studies. It explains the conditions and practical limitations of different liability pathways such as derivative responsibility, joint criminal enterprise liability, and command responsibility. Building on this information, the paper suggests concrete institutional recommendations from three aspects: improving international legal norms, enhancing domestic law adjustments, and strengthening internal company governance. Specific suggestions include making rules clearer about corporate legal responsibility, improving how international standards become part of domestic law, and legally requiring compliance duties. These proposals aim to provide theoretical support and practical solutions for addressing the accountability gap concerning parent companies' overseas operations.

The article traces the emergence and progressive refinement of what the author terms the subsidiary jurisdiction of international criminal courts: that is, their authority over matters which do not fall within the canonical catalogue of international crimes, yet are indispensable for safeguarding the proper functioning and procedural integrity of international criminal justice itself. It follows this institution from its tentative prefiguration in nineteenth‑ and early twentieth‑century projects of international criminal tribunals, through the jurisprudence of the post‑war military courts and subsequent ad hoc tribunals, to its eventual codification in Article 70 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Methodologically, the study combines a historical‑legal approach – designed to reconstruct the chronological unfolding of the institution – with formal and comparative legal analysis of constitutive instruments, rules of procedure and case law of the relevant international bodies. Its originality lies in treating the development of jurisdiction over offences against the administration of international criminal justice not as a mere by‑product of the broader evolution of international criminal jurisdiction, but as an autonomous, structurally coherent historical‑legal process. By reconstructing the principal stages of this process and identifying the persistent patterns that emerge from them, the article suggests that the relevant norms have begun to transcend the confines of conventional treaty‑making, contributing to the crystallisation of a customary rule of international law requiring both states and international courts to respond to attacks upon the administration of international criminal justice.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the problems of implementing the norms on the crime of aggression into the national criminal legislation of Ukraine in the context of the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court with an emphasis on the historical development of the concept, criminalization, jurisdictional conflicts, the subject of the crime and the autonomy of national interpretation. The key international treaties and sources regulating the concept of the crime of aggression, the conditions for activating the jurisdiction of the ICC, the principle of complementarity, as well as the transition from the responsibility of states for acts of aggression to the individual criminal liability of individuals are analyzed. Special attention is paid to doctrinal concepts that evolve from the classical model of crimes against peace to modern criminalization in the Kampala Amendments. The mechanisms for protecting national sovereignty are considered, including judicial interpretation of jurisdiction, ratification of the amendments and counteraction to the immunities of aggressors. The gaps in regulation are highlighted, such as the incomplete implementation of Art. 8-bis in the CCU, the uneven ratification and implementation among the states parties to the Rome Statute. The focus of the study is the transformation of the institution of responsibility for aggression: unification of criminalization, simplification of jurisdictional procedures, adaptation to European standards of international criminal justice. The importance of introducing models of accurate, expanded or combined reproduction of the Kampala norms and strengthening national jurisdiction for the prosecution of senior leadership is emphasized. It is concluded that further improvement of the legal regulation of the implementation of the crime of aggression is key to restoring justice, holding those responsible for the war accountable, and Ukraine’s European integration, transforming the challenges of the conflict into opportunities for legal certainty and international law.

It is indicated that the full-scale war against Ukraine has exacerbated the problem of ensuring the right of victims of war crimes to restitution and compensation for losses in the context of systemic violations of international humanitarian law. Restoring justice after the end of hostilities should include not only criminal prosecution of the perpetrators, but also guaranteeing full compensation for material and moral damage to the victims. Restitution and compensation for losses are key components of transitional justice, designed to restore violated rights and form the basis for post-conflict reconstruction of society. The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal, evidentiary, and institutional mechanisms for the implementation of the right to restitution and compensation for damage suffered by victims of war crimes in the context of the armed aggression against Ukraine. Restitution and compensation are examined as key elements of transitional justice aimed at restoring status quo ante, ensuring justice, and compensating losses incurred by natural and legal persons as a result of violations of international humanitarian law. The study analyzes international legal standards enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, and the case law of international tribunals, which recognize the inalienable right of victims to the restoration of property rights, compensation for losses, and reparations for harm caused in the context of armed conflict and the imposition of martial law. Particular attention is paid to the importance of an adequate evidentiary framework as a prerequisite for the effective realization of compensation rights in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. The article outlines methodologies for documenting destruction through the systematic collection of photo and video materials, recording witness testimonies, and preserving title documents and cadastral data. It examines innovative practices involving digital tools, including OSINT technologies, geospatial analytics, satellite imagery, and blockchain registries, to ensure the authenticity, verification, and long- term preservation of evidence. National and international mechanisms for documenting damage are analyzed, as well as the role of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies in establishing causal links between the actions of the aggressor and the damage inflicted, and in securing the recovery of reparations. The necessity of interagency coordination to enhance the quality of evidence and the effectiveness of victims’ rights protection is substantiated.

Background: Crimes against humanity are among the gravest offences under international criminal law and require individual criminal responsibility to prevent impunity. The International Criminal Court (ICC), established by the Rome Statute, provides a framework on crimes against humanity and modes of liability, yet its case law reveals doctrinal tensions. This article examines how the Court interprets and applies individual criminal responsibility in such cases. Methods: The research employs a normative legal method using statute and case approaches. It analyses provisions of the Rome Statute on crimes against humanity and individual responsibility, and reviews selected ICC judgments, which are qualitatively assessed to evaluate coherence and trends in the Court’s reasoning. Findings: The study finds that the Court has developed an architecture of modes of liability, including direct perpetration, co-perpetration, indirect perpetration, participation, and command responsibility, each with distinct actus reus and mens rea requirements. However, overlaps between modes, fluctuating evidentiary thresholds for senior leaders, and divergences between Trial and Appeals Chambers generate uncertainty and raise concerns about consistency and fairness. These dynamics reveal a gap between the conceptual aims of international criminal law and its practical enforcement before the ICC. Conclusion: The article concludes that, although the Court has advanced the doctrine of individual criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity, significant doctrinal and practical challenges remain. Novelty/Originality of this article: This study offers a structured mapping of modes of liability in ICC jurisprudence and links those patterns to wider debates on the legitimacy and effectiveness of international criminal justice.

Violence against the Rohingya community in Myanmar has emerged as one of the most systematic and brutal humanitarian tragedies in contemporary history. Amidst the realities of genocide, crimes against humanity, and forced deportation, international law faces an acute challenge in demonstrating its normative and operational reach. This article aims to provide a philosophical and juridical analysis of the international legal constellation surrounding the crimes committed against the Rohingya ethnic group, the responsibility of the State of Myanmar, and the failure of the international community to uphold the principles of justice. This study employs a normative-juridical method using both conceptual and case-based approaches, and it critically examines international legal norms such as the Rome Statute, the 1948 Genocide Convention, the principle of jus cogens, and the doctrine of erga omnes obligations. The analysis reveals that the crimes committed against the Rohingya community constitute not only grave violations of fundamental norms of international law but also reflect a collective failure of the global community in fulfilling its responsibilities. Moreover, the study identifies a stagnation in the enforcement of legal accountability, rooted in political factors, institutional weaknesses, and the normalization of diplomatic relations. The article recommends strengthening transnational mechanisms and establishing an ad hoc tribunal as necessary measures for the restoration of substantive justice for victims and for reaffirming the supremacy of international law over impunity.

This study aims to examine how war crimes are conceptualised and enforced within the framework of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the Rome Statute by analysing the Israel–Palestine conflict as a prolonged and politically contested armed conflict in which serious violations against civilians persist with limited accountability. Using a normative legal research design, this article applies a statutory and case-based approach through doctrinal analysis of the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute, supported by qualitative examination of ICC-related documents, United Nations reports, and verified secondary data to assess the implementation of core IHL principles, particularly distinction and proportionality. The findings demonstrate that recurrent violations committed by both parties are not primarily caused by normative gaps in international law, but rather by structural enforcement barriers, including the ICC’s jurisdictional and admissibility constraints, restricted access to evidence, lack of state cooperation, political interference, and selective enforcement through international institutions, especially the UN Security Council. These obstacles contribute to an enduring enforcement deficit that weakens civilian protection and perpetuates impunity in asymmetric and protracted conflicts. The novelty of this study lies in systematically linking fundamental IHL principles—distinction, proportionality, and the prohibition of excessive force—to their qualification as war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute, while critically demonstrating how political realities and institutional dependence on state cooperation undermine the effectiveness of international criminal accountability mechanisms. This research highlights the urgent need to strengthen coordination among international institutions, enhance investigative access and evidentiary reliability, and promote more consistent and impartial enforcement strategies to ensure that IHL and international criminal law operate as effective deterrents and justice-delivering instruments in contemporary armed conflicts.

This article analyzes some principles of international criminal law that create grounds for bringing persons to criminal responsibility for committing international crimes. The article analyzes the practice of international criminal law, the compliance of national criminal legislation with established international practice and the provisions of the Rome Statute. Based on the conducted research, the vectors of improvement of criminal legislation and the practice of its application are outlined. The principle of commander’s responsibility is analyzed, in particular, in the context of Article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia Inaction during an armed conflict. This principle is of fundamental importance both in international criminal law and in national law, since commanders have an obligation to take the necessary measures to prevent violations by subordinates. Analyzing the principle of the inadmissibility of references to official position, the authors note that the domestic immunities granted to officials are aimed at providing them with guarantees from prosecution by national criminal justice authorities, but should not apply when jurisdiction is exercised by the International Criminal Court. It is necessary to establish in legislation that the extradition of persons to the ICC will not be equated to the usual extradition process to a foreign State.

In the light of the adoption of the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia on 05.05.2021 and the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice and the commitments made to implement the provisions of the latter, it is extremely important to study the internationally recognized principle of non bis in idem (“Not twice for the same thing”), which has received a slightly different framework in the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia. The article analyzes various aspects of the principle under consideration, including cases when a person brought to a different type of responsibility cannot be criminally liable twice for the same act, as well as the content of the phrase “for the same acts”.

This study critically analyzes the existence of international criminal sanctions in the Ukraine and Gaza Strip conflicts from 2023 to 2025. Using a normative legal approach, this study examines the existence of international criminal sanctions, particularly those stipulated in Principle I (individual criminal responsibility), Principle III (denial of official immunity), and Principle IV (denial of superior orders), codified in Articles 25, 27, and 28 of the Rome Statute. Several obstacles to enforcing criminal sanctions are often hampered by the principle of complementarity (Article 17) and the UN Security Council veto mechanism (Article 27(3) of the UN Charter), making the existence of criminal sanctions through ICC decisions unenforceable. This is evident in the failure to execute the arrest warrant against Putin (March 17, 2023) for the deportation of 19,144 Ukrainian children and four simultaneous warrants against Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas leaders (May 20, 2024). Six Russian vetoes against Ukraine (2022 2024) and 46 US vetoes related to Israel Palestine since 1972 paralyze the reference to Article 13(b) then to what extent the existence of criminal rules for crimes imposed on the Ukraine and Gaza Strip conflicts in the period 2023-2025, how can the UN council veto rules affect this existence? So it can be concluded that to what extent the criminal rules in punishing perpetrators of international crimes exist so that they can realize an international criminal system that is not only decorative but can also be implemented effectively as a form of deterrence for perpetrators and a last resort in eliminating the existence of international crimes.