International Criminal Court Stalls on Expanding War Crime Prosecution Powers
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has encountered a significant stalemate in its efforts to expand its authority to investigate crimes of aggression by world leaders. After three days of deliberations, the court has failed to pass an amendment that would allow it to initiate investigations into such crimes. The proposed amendment, which calls for the ICC to be able to start proceedings if at least one of the warring parties has ratified the Kampala amendments, has faced strong opposition from major members including the UK, Canada, France, Japan, and New Zealand. These countries argue that the final decision should only be made after at least two-thirds of ICC participants have ratified the changes, a condition that has not yet been met. The failure to reach consensus has prompted the ICC to set a future meeting for 2029 to revisit the issue. The ongoing stalemate highlights the challenges of international legal cooperation in addressing high-level criminal conduct in global conflicts.
During the recent special session at the UN headquarters in New York, the ICC deliberated on the harmonization amendment, which was proposed by Germany, Costa Rica, Slovenia, Sierra Leone, and Vanuatu. The amendment seeks to clarify the court’s jurisdiction over crimes of aggression, which are considered the most serious offense under the Rome Statute. Currently, the ICC can prosecute heads of state for war crimes and genocide, but to address crimes of aggression, the Kampala amendments of 2010 must be ratified by all sides of a conflict. To date, only 41 of the 125 members have supported these amendments, a far cry from the required majority.
France’s representative raised concerns about the potential contradictions between the harmonization amendment and the UN Charter, while the Nigerian delegation warned that the amendment could inadvertently place ratifying states at greater legal risk. These concerns underscore the complexities of aligning international legal frameworks with existing geopolitical and institutional structures. The French representative argued during the session that the harmonization amendment raises potential contradictions with the UN Charter, while his Nigerian counterpart warned that it could create a system in which ratifying states might “paradoxically be more exposed to legal risks.”
A Palestinian representative at the gathering emphasized during the final day of the session that the ongoing discussions about the crime of aggression are a “steeplechase, where we have to run and where the obstacles only increase, and the victims of the crime of aggression are asked to wait in the meantime.” This sentiment reflects the frustration of those who advocate for more immediate legal action and accountability for perpetrators of large-scale violence.
The ICC’s deliberations are occurring against the backdrop of several high-profile cases, including the issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes during the military operation in Gaza. Israel, not a signatory to the Rome Statute, has labeled the court as a “political tool serving Israel’s enemies.” Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin faces charges from the ICC over alleged unlawfully deporting children during the Ukraine conflict, though Moscow has rejected the charges as “null and void,” maintaining that the court has no jurisdiction over Russia.
These cases highlight the broader tensions between the ICC and certain states, particularly those that are not members of the court, which often question its legitimacy and jurisdiction. The US has also taken a firm stance against the ICC, sanctioning the court’s top prosecutor, Karim Khan, and several judges for what it called “illegitimate and baseless actions” against the United States and Israel. These actions underscore the deepening geopolitical rifts and the challenges the ICC faces in enforcing its authority in a fragmented international system.
As the ICC prepares to return to the issue in 2029, the failure to reach a consensus underscores the significant political and legal hurdles in expanding its purview. This situation not only reflects the complexities of international law but also highlights the difficulties in achieving global consensus on accountability for high-level crimes in international conflicts.