Human Rights and International Criminal Court , history and role of ICC, UN and ICC, ICC and

ICJ, ICC and National courts

History International Criminal Court (ICC)

Background

Before the ICC, international tribunals like the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals (post-
WWII), and later the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and
Rwanda (ICTR) in the 1990s, laid the groundwork for prosecuting individuals for war crimes
and crimes against humanity. These tribunals demonstrated the need for a permanent
international court to address the most serious crimes under international law.

Establishment:

The Rome Statute, adopted in 1998, created the ICC. It entered into force on 1 July 2002.
The ICC is based in The Hague, Netherlands. As of 2025, over 120 countries are parties to the
Rome Statute (though notable non-members include the United States, China, Russia, and India).
Signatory must be signed the statute and rectified [Link] and Russian signed but not rectified
that

Role of the ICC in Human Rights Law

Jurisdiction:

The ICC prosecutes individuals not states for the following core International crimes:

1. Genocide; acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial, or religious group.
2. Crimes against humanity; widespread or systematic attacks against civilians (e.g.,
murder, torture, rape).
3. War crimes; serious violations of the laws and customs of war.
4. Crime of aggression; the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty or integrity
of another state (jurisdiction since 2018, under specific conditions).

Human Rights Contribution

The ICC reinforces accountability for egregious human rights violations. It complements
national legal systems by intervening when states are unable or unwilling to prosecute serious
crimes. The ICC acts as a deterrent to future human rights abuses. It contributes to victims'
rights, including participation in proceedings and reparations an innovation in international
criminal law.
Challenges and Criticism

The International Criminal Court (ICC) faces several significant challenges and
criticisms. One of the most prominent concerns is the allegation of selective justice, as critics
argue that the ICC disproportionately targets African nations while overlooking similar crimes
elsewhere. This has led to perceptions of bias and undermined the Court's global credibility.
Additionally, there is considerable political resistance from powerful countries such as the
United States, Russia, and China, which have either not joined the ICC or have withdrawn their
support, limiting the Court's reach and authority. Another major issue is enforcement, as the ICC
lacks its own police force and depends on member states to arrest and surrender suspects. This
dependency often hampers the execution of arrest warrants. Furthermore, the ICC has limited
jurisdiction. It can only prosecute crimes committed after July 1, 2002, and only within the
territory or by nationals of member states, unless a case is referred by the UN Security Council.
These limitations significantly affect the Court's ability to deliver universal justice.

Notable Cases:

 Thomas Lubanga (DRC): First person convicted by the ICC (recruiting child soldiers).
 Omar al-Bashir (Sudan): First sitting head of state indicted (genocide in Darfur).
 Uhuru Kenyatta (Kenya): Charges dropped due to lack of evidence (alleged crimes after
2007 elections).
 Vladimir Putin (Russia): Arrest warrant issued in 2023 for war crimes related to Ukraine
conflict.

Human Rights and the International Criminal Court (ICC)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to uphold human rights by
prosecuting individuals responsible for the most serious crimes of concern to the International
community such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
The ICC was created by the Rome Statute in 1998 and began functioning in 2002, becoming the
world’s first permanent international criminal court. Its primary role is to complement national
criminal justice systems, stepping in only when countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute
serious crimes domestically. Through its investigations and prosecutions, the ICC plays a
significant role in the enforcement of international human rights law, particularly in post-conflict
societies.

United Nations (UN) and the International Criminal Court (ICC)

The United Nations (UN) and the ICC maintain a cooperative but independent
relationship. While the ICC is not a UN body, it was established with UN support and frequently
works in tandem with UN mechanisms. The UN Security Council has the power to refer cases to
the ICC, as seen in situations like Darfur (Sudan) and Libya, even if the state concerned is not a
party to the Rome Statute. The UN General Assembly and the Secretary-General also support the
ICC through political backing and cooperation agreements, reinforcing the court’s legitimacy in
the international system.

The United Nations (UN) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are distinct but
interconnected entities in the field of international justice and human rights protection. Here’s a
breakdown of their relationship, differences, and collaborative roles:

1. Relationship between the UN and ICC

Legal and Institutional Links

The ICC is independent of the UN system, created by the Rome Statute (1998), not a UN
treaty. However, the UN and ICC cooperate under a formal Relationship Agreement signed in
2004, which outlines their mutual respect, cooperation, and coordination.

UN Security Council (UNSC) Role

Under Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute, the UNSC can refer situations to the ICC, even
involving non-member states. The UNSC also has the power (Article 16) to defer an
investigation or prosecution for 12 months, renewable.

Examples of UNSC referrals to the ICC:

 Darfur (Sudan) in 2005 – led to the indictment of President Omar al-Bashir.

 Libya in 2011 – led to the indictment of Muammar Gaddafi and others.

2. Differences between the UN and ICC

Aspect United Nations (UN) International Criminal Court (ICC)

Established 1945 2002

Legal Basis UN Charter Rome Statute

Members 193 member states 124 state parties (to the Rome Statute)

Maintain international peace and Prosecute individuals for the most serious
Main Purpose security, promote human rights and crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity,
development war crimes, aggression)

Jurisdiction Global, political, and humanitarian Legal, criminal, and individual-focused

Enforcement Political authority through Security Legal authority but relies on states for
Power Council enforcement
3. Complementary Roles

Human Rights and Accountability

The UN promotes human rights, but it doesn’t prosecute violators. The ICC fills that gap by
ensuring individual accountability for serious crimes. Furthermore, UN investigative bodies
(e.g., fact-finding missions, commissions of inquiry) often provide information that can assist
ICC investigations.

Peacekeeping and Justice

The UN peacekeeping missions sometimes support ICC operations in the field (e.g.,
logistical support, security). However, tension can arise between peace and justice e.g., when
ICC indictments complicate peace negotiations.

4. Challenges in the UN and ICC Relationship

The relationship between the United Nations (UN) and the International Criminal Court
(ICC) faces several challenges that hinder the effective delivery of international justice. One
major issue is political limitations, particularly within the UN Security Council (UNSC), where
the five permanent members (P5) possess veto power. Countries like the United States, Russia,
and China—not members of the ICC have used this power to block referrals, undermining the
Court's jurisdiction and authority. Another challenge, as the ICC does not have its own
enforcement arm and relies on member states and the UN for cooperation. However, the Security
Council has often failed to ensure that arrest warrants issued by the ICC are executed, limiting
the Court's effectiveness. Additionally, there is inconsistent support from the UN, which varies
depending on political will and the prevailing international context. This uneven backing
compromises the ICC’s independence and its ability to function as a truly global mechanism for
justice.

ICC and International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are
two distinct entities with different roles. The ICJ, established in 1945 under the UN Charter,
deals with legal disputes between states and provides advisory opinions on international law. In
contrast, the ICC prosecutes individuals for serious international crimes. While both courts
promote justice and the rule of law, the ICJ lacks enforcement mechanisms for criminal
responsibility, whereas the ICC has the authority to arrest, try, and sentence individuals. Despite
their differences, both courts contribute to the broader goal of strengthening international human
rights and accountability.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are
two important institutions in the international legal system, but they have different mandates,
jurisdictions, and roles. Here's a detailed comparison and explanation:
1. Differences between ICC and ICJ

Feature International Criminal Court (ICC) International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Established 2002 (by the Rome Statute) 1945 (by the UN Charter)
Jurisdiction Individual criminal responsibility Disputes between states
Crimes Addressed / Genocide, crimes against Border disputes, treaty
Matters Handled humanity, war crimes, crime of interpretation, diplomatic relations,
aggression etc.
Parties 124 member states (Rome Statute) All 193 UN member states are
automatically parties to the ICJ
Statute
Location The Hague, Netherlands The Hague, Netherlands
Nature of Court Criminal court (focus on Civil court (focus on legal disputes
accountability of individuals) between states)
Enforcement Relies on member states for arrest Relies on UN Security Council for
and enforcement enforcement
Relation to the UN Independent; cooperates with UN Principal judicial organ of the
via formal agreement United Nations

2. Functions and Roles

International Criminal Court (ICC)

Prosecutes individuals (not states) for the most serious international crimes. Focuses on
accountability, justice for victims, and ending impunity. Has complementary jurisdiction acts
only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Resolves legal disputes between sovereign states, such as territorial disputes, use of force,
diplomatic issues, and treaty obligations. Provides advisory opinions to the UN General
Assembly and other international bodies. Its rulings are binding on states involved in the case,
but enforcement is political (via the UN Security Council).

3. Complementary Roles

Although the ICC and ICJ operate independently, they complement each other:

 The ICJ resolves inter-state legal issues, while the ICC ensures accountability of
individuals for international crimes.
  The ICJ’s judgments can help frame legal contexts that inform ICC investigations (e.g.,
on state responsibilities or treaties).
 Both contribute to the development of international law and promote peace, justice, and
accountability.

ICC and National Courts

The ICC operates under the principle of complementarity, meaning it only acts when
national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute. This ensures respect for state
sovereignty while still holding individuals accountable for human rights violations. National
jurisdictions are given the first opportunity to deal with alleged crimes, and the ICC intervenes
only as a last resort. This principle also encourages states to strengthen their own judicial
systems. Additionally, many ICC cases rely on cooperation from national authorities for the
arrest and surrender of suspects, gathering evidence, and enforcing sentences.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) and national courts share responsibilities in
enforcing international criminal law. Their relationship is built on the principle of
complementarity, which is a cornerstone of the ICC’s mandate.

1. Complementarity Principle

The ICC is a court of last resort. It will only prosecute a case if national courts are unwilling
or unable to do so genuinely. This principle respects national sovereignty and encourages
domestic accountability for international crimes. Found in Article 17 of the Rome Statute.

2. When Does the ICC Intervene?

The ICC can step in only if:

 The national court has not taken action (no investigation or prosecution).
 The national proceedings are a sham or not conducted independently or impartially.
 The national court is unable to carry out proceedings (e.g., due to collapse of the judicial
system or conflict).

3. ICC Support for National Courts.

ICC encourages capacity-building in national legal systems to handle international crimes

domestically. It can share evidence, expertise, and best practices with national authorities. It
supports positive complementarity, where national courts take the lead and the ICC provides
support if needed.

4. Challenges in the Relationship

National prosecutions of international crimes often face several significant challenges that
hinder the delivery of justice. Political interference is a major obstacle, as governments may
exert influence over investigations or trials to protect political allies or avoid scrutiny.
Additionally, weak judicial systems or a lack of resources in some states can prevent fair and
effective prosecutions, especially in post-conflict or developing countries. Another issue is the
presence of legislative gaps, where some countries have not incorporated international crimes—
such as genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity into their domestic legal frameworks,
making prosecution difficult or impossible. Lastly, conflict of jurisdiction may arise when both
the ICC and national courts claim the right to prosecute a case, leading to legal and procedural
complications that can delay or derail justice efforts.

ICCPR:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a core international
human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 and entered into
force in 1976. It aims to ensure the protection of civil and political rights of individuals,
including the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from torture, fair
trial, and participation in public affairs. The ICCPR obligates state parties to respect and uphold
these rights without discrimination and to provide effective remedies for violations. It also
established the Human Rights Committee, which monitors implementation and reviews state
reports. The ICCPR is legally binding on countries that have ratified it and is considered a
cornerstone of international human rights law, emphasizing the inherent dignity and equal rights
of all human beings.

ICESCR:

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is a key
international human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 and
entered into force in 1976. It aims to ensure the protection and promotion of economic, social,
and cultural rights, such as the right to work, the right to education, the right to social security,
the right to health, and the right to an adequate standard of living. The ICESCR obligates state
parties to take steps, to the maximum of their available resources, to progressively achieve the
full realization of these rights. Unlike civil and political rights, which are often immediately
enforceable, economic, social, and cultural rights are generally subject to gradual
implementation. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
monitors compliance through state reports and issues general comments to guide interpretation.
The ICESCR emphasizes dignity, equality, and the improvement of living conditions as
fundamental to global human rights.

CEDAW:

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

(CEDAW) is an international human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly in 1979 and entered into force in 1981. Often referred to as the “women’s bill of
rights,” CEDAW is dedicated to eliminating discrimination against women in all spheres of life
legal, political, economic, social, and cultural. It requires state parties to ensure equality between
men and women through appropriate legislation, policies, and institutional reforms. CEDAW
covers issues such as women's rights in education, employment, healthcare, marriage and family
life, and political participation. It also addresses harmful cultural practices and stereotypes that
perpetuate gender inequality. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women oversees implementation, reviews periodic reports from state parties, and may consider
individual complaints under the Optional Protocol. CEDAW is a cornerstone of global efforts to
promote gender equality and women's empowerment.

CRC:

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is a landmark human rights treaty
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 and entered into force in 1990. It is the
most widely ratified international human rights treaty, reflecting global commitment to
protecting and promoting the rights of all children. The CRC defines a child as anyone under the
age of 18 and sets out a comprehensive set of rights including the right to life, survival and
development, protection from abuse and exploitation, education, healthcare, and participation in
social and cultural life. It emphasizes that children should grow up in a safe, supportive, and
nurturing environment, and that their best interests must be a primary consideration in all actions
concerning them. The Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors implementation by
reviewing periodic reports submitted by state parties. The CRC also encourages national laws
and policies that uphold children’s rights, while promoting international cooperation to address
challenges such as child labor, trafficking, and lack of access to basic services.