What Is International Criminal Law?
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- 11 minutes ago
- 29 min read
Introduction
International Criminal Law is the body of law under which individuals may incur criminal responsibility for certain crimes recognized by international law. Depending on the applicable legal regime, responsibility may attach to a person who commits, orders, assists, contributes to, or otherwise participates in an international crime. This form of responsibility is legally distinct from the international responsibility of states, even where the same conduct gives rise to both (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 25; ILC, 2001, art. 58).
The modern field developed through several institutional stages. The International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo established postwar mechanisms for prosecuting individuals for crimes defined under international law. Decades later, the United Nations created the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, whose statutes and jurisprudence substantially developed substantive crimes, individual responsibility, and international criminal procedure (UNSC, 1993; UNSC, 1994). The Rome Statute, adopted in 1998 and in force since 2002, established the International Criminal Court as the first permanent international criminal court created by treaty. International Criminal Law nevertheless extends beyond the ICC and continues to operate through national courts, other international tribunals, and hybrid or internationalized institutions.
Article 5 of the Rome Statute places four crimes within the ICC's subject-matter jurisdiction: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Each has distinct legal requirements. Genocide requires one of the enumerated acts to be committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Under the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity require specified acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack; the relevant course of conduct must also be pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy. War crimes involve serious violations connected with an armed conflict that entail individual criminal responsibility. The crime of aggression applies to qualifying leadership conduct involving an act of aggression by a State that, by its character, gravity, and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 6–8 bis).
The legal classification of atrocity is consequently more demanding than a judgment about the gravity of events. Criminal responsibility depends on an applicable prohibition, proof of the elements of the relevant offense, the required mental element, and a legally recognized basis for attributing the conduct to the accused. The principle of legality constrains that process: conduct cannot be punished merely because it appears morally reprehensible or politically intolerable if the applicable criminal law did not define it as a crime at the relevant time (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 22–24).
Questions of jurisdiction arise separately from the existence of the substantive crime. An international crime may be recognized by international law even when a particular court lacks jurisdiction over the accused or the events in question. International Criminal Law accordingly encompasses the definition of international crimes, principles governing individual responsibility and culpability, the jurisdiction of national and international courts, procedural safeguards, and the mechanisms through which criminal accountability can be pursued. It intersects with international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the law governing the use of force, state responsibility, and domestic criminal law, while retaining its own rules for determining when an individual may lawfully be investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and punished.
1. Defining International Criminal Law
The expression International Criminal Law has several established meanings. It may refer to rules governing the extraterritorial reach of national criminal law, international cooperation in criminal matters, treaty regimes dealing with transnational offenses, or the body of law under which individuals incur criminal responsibility directly under international law. These usages overlap, but they describe legally distinct functions and should not be treated as a single category (Kreß, 2009).
In its broader forms, the field includes rules determining when a state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over conduct occurring outside its territory and the mechanisms through which states assist one another in criminal proceedings. Extradition, mutual legal assistance, transfer of proceedings, recognition and enforcement of judgments, and cross-border evidence gathering fall within this sphere. The criminal law being enforced in such cases is often domestic law, even though international law regulates the jurisdictional basis or the cooperation between states.
Transnational criminal law presents a related but different problem. International conventions address offenses including drug trafficking, corruption, trafficking in persons, organized crime, aircraft hijacking, and various forms of terrorism. Such treaties may require States Parties to criminalize specified conduct domestically, establish jurisdiction, cooperate with other states, and in some circumstances prosecute an alleged offender when extradition does not occur. Treaty regulation of this kind does not, by itself, establish that the prohibited conduct constitutes a crime directly under international law (Kreß, 2009).
International Criminal Law is used here principally in the stricter sense: the rules governing individual criminal responsibility for crimes under international law. Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression are the four core crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but the broader question of which offenses may qualify as crimes under international law has not always been confined to those four categories. The legal character of the offense, rather than the nationality of the accused or the identity of the prosecuting court, is decisive to this distinction.
A national court may consequently prosecute an international crime without changing its legal character, just as international cooperation between several states does not convert an ordinary or treaty-based domestic offense into an international crime. This distinction explains why International Criminal Law cannot be identified simply with international criminal courts. National jurisdictions remain an important forum for the enforcement of crimes recognized under international law.
The field also intersects with international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the law governing the use of force, and the law of State responsibility. War crimes depend heavily on rules of international humanitarian law, while genocide and crimes against humanity frequently involve conduct that also violates international human rights obligations. The crime of aggression is closely connected to the prohibition on unlawful uses of force under the UN Charter, although the conditions for individual criminal responsibility are separate from the rules determining whether a State has violated the prohibition on force.
State responsibility and individual criminal responsibility may arise from the same underlying events without becoming the same form of legal responsibility. Article 25(4) of the Rome Statute expressly preserves the responsibility of States under international law, while Article 58 of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility preserves questions concerning individual responsibility (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 25(4); ILC, 2001, art. 58). The legal consequences, responsible subjects, and applicable procedures remain distinct even where the factual conduct overlaps.
2. The Emergence of International Criminal Responsibility
Practices and precedents involving the punishment of individuals for conduct of international concern existed before 1945, but they did not amount to a comprehensive system equivalent to modern International Criminal Law. The institutional foundations of the contemporary field emerged after the Second World War, when the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East at Tokyo prosecuted senior political and military figures before multinational tribunals applying crimes defined at the international level.
The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal conferred jurisdiction over crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It also provided that an accused's official position did not free that person from responsibility or mitigate punishment and that acting pursuant to superior orders did not automatically eliminate responsibility (London Charter, 1945, arts. 6–8). The Nuremberg Judgment gave practical effect to the proposition that international law could impose criminal responsibility on individuals rather than operating exclusively through obligations placed on States.
The United Nations General Assembly affirmed the principles recognized in the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment in Resolution 95(I), adopted in 1946. The International Law Commission subsequently formulated the Nuremberg Principles in 1950. Principle I states that any person who commits an act constituting a crime under international law is responsible and liable to punishment, while the later principles address domestic legality, official capacity, superior orders, the right to a fair trial, and the categories of crimes recognized at Nuremberg (UNGA, 1946; ILC, 1950).
The postwar tribunals did not produce a complete code of contemporary International Criminal Law. Their legal foundations and some aspects of their jurisdiction generated substantial contemporary and later debate concerning the principle of legality, especially in relation to crimes against peace and aspects of crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg Tribunal rejected the principal claim that prosecution for crimes against peace was impermissibly retroactive, but the legality debate remained important in subsequent scholarship and in the development of more precisely codified international crimes.
The treatment of crimes against humanity also changed after Nuremberg. Under the Nuremberg Charter, crimes against humanity were linked to crimes within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. That connection no longer defines crimes against humanity under contemporary treaty law. The ICTY Appeals Chamber later observed that customary international law did not require crimes against humanity to be connected with an international armed conflict, and the Rome Statute contains no armed-conflict nexus in its Article 7 definition (ICTY, 1995; Rome Statute, 1998, art. 7).
International criminal adjudication returned on a substantial scale in the 1990s. Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993 and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994 (UNSC, 1993; UNSC, 1994). Their jurisdiction was geographically and temporally limited, but both tribunals produced extensive jurisprudence on substantive crimes, individual responsibility, procedure, and the relationship between treaty rules and customary international law.
The ICTY's decision on jurisdiction in Tadić became particularly influential in addressing customary international humanitarian law applicable to non-international armed conflict (ICTY, 1995). The ICTR's Trial Judgment in Akayesu made a major contribution to the legal treatment of sexual violence, including its potential relationship with genocide and crimes against humanity (ICTR, 1998). In the Čelebići proceedings, the ICTY Trial and Appeals Chambers addressed superior responsibility and clarified elements governing responsibility for crimes committed by subordinates (ICTY, 1998; ICTY, 2001). These authorities remain influential, although their reasoning must be applied within the legal framework of the forum considering them.
International criminal adjudication also developed outside the model of the UN ad hoc tribunals. The Special Court for Sierra Leone was established through an agreement between the United Nations and Sierra Leone, while the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia combined Cambodian and international elements under a different institutional arrangement (United Nations and Sierra Leone, 2002; United Nations and Cambodia, 2003). Such institutions are commonly described as hybrid or internationalized courts, but their jurisdiction, applicable law, composition, and relationship with domestic legal systems differ substantially.
The Rome Statute was adopted on 17 July 1998 at the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries in Rome and entered into force on 1 July 2002 in accordance with Article 126 (United Nations, 1998; Rome Statute, 1998, art. 126). It established the International Criminal Court as the first permanent international criminal court created by treaty. The Court was not designed to replace national criminal jurisdictions. Its Statute states that the ICC is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions, and admissibility under Article 17 depends in significant part on whether relevant national proceedings are taking place genuinely (Rome Statute, 1998, Preamble, arts. 1 and 17).
The establishment of the ICC also did not displace customary international law, the jurisprudence of earlier tribunals, or other international and hybrid institutions. Those sources and bodies remain relevant according to the applicable law of the forum in which a question arises. The ICC occupies a central position in contemporary international criminal justice, but International Criminal Law remains institutionally and doctrinally broader than the Rome Statute system.
3. Sources, Legality, and the General Part
International Criminal Law has no single universal criminal code applicable in identical form before every court. Treaty law, customary international law, and general principles have contributed to the substantive field, while the governing instruments and applicable-law rules of particular courts determine which sources may be used in a given proceeding. The existence of a doctrine somewhere within international criminal jurisprudence does not itself establish that another tribunal or national court is legally entitled to apply it.
The Rome Statute provides a detailed example of an institution-specific applicable-law regime. Article 21 requires the ICC to apply, first, the Statute, the Elements of Crimes, and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Where appropriate, the Court may then apply applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law. If those sources do not resolve the issue, Article 21(1)(c) permits the application of general principles derived from national laws of legal systems of the world, including, where appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are consistent with the Statute and international law (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 21(1)).
Article 21 also places a substantive limit on the interpretation and application of those sources. Under paragraph 3, the Court's application and interpretation of law must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights and must be without adverse distinction on specified grounds (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 21(3)). Article 21 is consequently an applicable-law provision for the ICC, not a universal hierarchy of sources binding every court dealing with international crimes.
Customary international law assumed particular importance before the ICTY and ICTR because their statutes did not comprehensively define every substantive and general principle required for adjudication. The tribunals frequently examined whether rules had acquired customary status and whether violations of those rules entailed individual criminal responsibility. In Tadić, for example, the ICTY Appeals Chamber examined customary rules applicable in non-international armed conflicts when considering the Tribunal's jurisdiction over violations of the laws or customs of war (ICTY, 1995).
International criminal judgments have consequently influenced the identification and interpretation of legal rules, but their precedential effect depends on the institutional setting. Decisions of one international criminal tribunal do not automatically bind another tribunal operating under a different statute. Within a particular institution, earlier appellate decisions may have a stronger authoritative effect according to that tribunal's legal structure and jurisprudence. The ICTY, for example, developed an internal doctrine concerning the authority of Appeals Chamber decisions over Trial Chambers, while Article 21(2) of the Rome Statute provides that the ICC may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions (ICTY, 1998; Rome Statute, 1998, art. 21(2)).
Domestic criminal law has influenced the development of what is often described as the general part of International Criminal Law: rules dealing with matters such as intent, participation, attempt, defenses, and superior responsibility rather than the definition of a particular international crime. Comparative analysis has been one method of identifying principles shared across national legal systems. Comparative law itself is not an independent formal source of international law; its legal relevance depends on the way national principles are received through an applicable source or governing instrument (Brown, 2011; Cassese et al., 2013).
The Rome Statute's treatment of general principles reflects that distinction. Article 21(1)(c) permits recourse to principles derived from national legal systems only after the sources listed earlier in Article 21 have failed to resolve the matter and only under the conditions imposed by the Statute. Domestic criminal concepts cannot simply be imported because they appear familiar or widespread. Their use must remain compatible with the law governing the Court and with internationally recognized human rights.
The principle of legality places an additional constraint on the definition and application of international crimes. Article 22 provides that a person may be held criminally responsible under the Rome Statute only if the conduct in question constituted a crime within the Court's jurisdiction when it occurred. Definitions must be strictly construed, may not be extended by analogy, and ambiguity must be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated, prosecuted, or convicted (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 22(1)–(2)).
The Statute also preserves the distinction between ICC law and the wider field. Article 22(3) provides that its legality rule does not affect the characterization of conduct as criminal under international law independently of the Rome Statute (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 22(3)). Conduct may thus fall outside the Court's statutory definition or jurisdiction without that fact alone resolving its characterization under other applicable rules of international law.
Article 23 embodies nulla poena sine lege by limiting punishment to penalties imposed in accordance with the Statute. Article 24 prohibits criminal responsibility under the Rome Statute for conduct preceding its entry into force and provides for the application of the law more favorable to the person being investigated, prosecuted, or convicted when the applicable law changes before a final judgment (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 23–24).
These safeguards are integral to criminal responsibility. The exceptional gravity of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or other alleged international offenses cannot create a prohibition that did not legally exist or supply elements that the applicable law does not contain. A criminal court must identify the law governing the alleged conduct at the relevant time, establish the elements of the offense, and apply an authorized basis of individual responsibility. Accountability under International Criminal Law remains criminal adjudication, with the constraints on punishment that this entails.
4. The International Crimes
International crimes are defined by legal elements, not by the scale of the events or the moral condemnation they provoke. Killing, detention, deportation, sexual violence, or destruction of property may constitute an international crime only when the requirements of the applicable offense are established. Those requirements may concern the prohibited act, its context, the status of victims or objects, the accused's mental state, or the relationship between the conduct and an armed conflict.
No single structure governs every offense. Genocide is distinguished by the intent to destroy a protected group, while crimes against humanity depend on a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. War crimes require a connection with armed conflict, although individual war crimes may contain additional purpose or intent requirements. Aggression combines State conduct with a leadership requirement and a particularly demanding threshold of unlawfulness.
The same underlying conduct can satisfy more than one legal characterization where the elements overlap. The ICC's Elements of Crimes assist the Court in interpreting and applying Articles 6, 7, 8, and 8 bis of the Rome Statute, but they form part of that institutional system rather than a universal criminal code for every forum (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 9).
4.1 Genocide
Genocide consists of specified acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. The Genocide Convention and Article 6 of the Rome Statute identify five forms of conduct: killing; causing serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction; imposing measures intended to prevent births; and forcibly transferring children to another group (Genocide Convention, 1948, art. II; Rome Statute, 1998, art. 6).
The distinctive requirement is the intent directed at destruction of the protected group. Mass killing, persecution, or forced displacement may provide evidence relevant to that inquiry, but none proves genocide by itself. In Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro, the International Court of Justice distinguished an intention to remove a population from an area from the intention to destroy the protected group, while recognizing that displacement may form part of the evidentiary context in which genocidal intent is assessed (ICJ, 2007).
An armed conflict is not required, and genocide is not confined to killing. The ICTR held in Prosecutor v Akayesu that rape and sexual violence could cause the serious bodily or mental harm contemplated by the genocide definition when accompanied by the required intent (ICTR, 1998). The legal question remains whether the prohibited act and the specific intent to destroy the protected group can both be proved.
4.2 Crimes Against Humanity
Article 7 of the Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity through specified acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of that attack. The listed acts include murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer, imprisonment, torture, specified forms of sexual violence, persecution, enforced disappearance, apartheid, and qualifying other inhumane acts (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 7).
The contextual element separates crimes against humanity from isolated ordinary offenses. Under the Rome Statute, an attack means a course of conduct involving multiple acts against a civilian population pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy. “Widespread” is associated principally with the scale of the attack, while “systematic” concerns its organized or patterned character; the statutory test is disjunctive, so either may satisfy the contextual threshold (Prosecutor v Kunarac, Kovač and Vuković, 2002).
The Rome Statute's policy requirement should not be projected uncritically onto every formulation of the crime. The ICTY Appeals Chamber in Kunarac did not regard proof of a policy or plan as a separate element of crimes against humanity under the customary law applicable before that Tribunal. Contemporary crimes against humanity also do not generally require an armed-conflict nexus, although earlier instruments, including the Nuremberg framework and the ICTY Statute, adopted more restricted or institution-specific formulations.
4.3 War Crimes
War crimes are serious violations of international humanitarian law that entail individual criminal responsibility. Their central contextual requirement is a sufficient connection between the prohibited conduct and an armed conflict. International and non-international armed conflicts are governed by overlapping but not identical rules, making conflict classification relevant to the elements of particular offenses (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 8).
An offense does not become a war crime merely because it occurred during hostilities. In Kunarac, the ICTY Appeals Chamber explained that the armed conflict must have played a substantial part in the perpetrator's ability, decision, manner, or purpose in committing the crime. Equally, not every breach of international humanitarian law carries individual criminal responsibility as a war crime (Prosecutor v Kunarac, Kovač and Vuković, 2002).
Article 8 covers offenses against protected persons, unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian objects, unlawful detention or transfer, sexual violence, pillage, destruction of property, and prohibited methods or means of warfare, among other conduct. Article 8(1) states that the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes “in particular” when they form part of a plan or policy or are committed on a large scale. ICC jurisprudence has treated that language as guidance concerning the Court's focus rather than an additional element of every war crime (Prosecutor v Bemba, 2016).
4.4 The Crime of Aggression
The crime of aggression differs structurally from the other core Rome Statute crimes. Article 8 bis applies to the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression by a person able effectively to exercise control over or direct the political or military action of a State. The State act must, by its character, gravity, and scale, constitute a manifest violation of the UN Charter (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 8 bis).
A State's unlawful use of force and an individual's criminal responsibility for aggression are separate legal questions. The Kampala Review Conference adopted the aggression amendments in 2010, including Article 8 bis and the jurisdictional provisions in Articles 15 bis and 15 ter. The Assembly of States Parties later activated the Court's jurisdiction with effect from 17 July 2018 (ICC Review Conference, 2010; ASP, 2017).
The jurisdictional compromise remains unsettled. At the July 2025 special session, States Parties remained divided over proposals to bring aggression jurisdiction closer to the regime governing genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. No harmonizing amendment was adopted. The Assembly established a continuing review process, including an intersessional meeting in 2027 and a special session in 2029 to reconsider the pending amendment proposal and other possible changes (ASP, 2025).
5. Individual Criminal Responsibility
International Criminal Law, as used here, is centered on the criminal responsibility of natural persons. Proof that genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or aggression occurred does not establish the guilt of every political leader, commander, official, or member of an organization associated with those events. Liability must be connected to the accused through a legally recognized basis of responsibility.
Article 25 of the Rome Statute reflects that principle by identifying specific forms of commission and participation for persons within the Court's jurisdiction. Article 27 addresses a separate point: official capacity does not exempt a person from criminal responsibility under the Statute. Neither provision permits guilt to be inferred from status alone (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 25, 27).
The distinction between the underlying offense and the mode of liability is fundamental. The definition of genocide determines what constitutes that crime; the rules governing perpetration, assistance, contribution, or superior responsibility determine whether a particular accused can be held responsible for it.
5.1 Perpetration and Participation
Article 25(3) recognizes several forms of responsibility. A person may commit a crime individually, jointly with another, or through another person; order, solicit, or induce its commission; aid, abet, or otherwise assist it; or make a qualifying intentional contribution to a crime committed or attempted by a group acting with a common purpose. The Statute also establishes responsibility for attempt under defined conditions (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 25(3)).
The requirements differ among these modes. The prosecution must establish the contribution demanded by the applicable provision together with its mental element. Article 25 does not create general responsibility for persons who occupy senior positions or belong to organizations implicated in international crimes.
Tribunal-specific doctrines require particular care. Joint criminal enterprise developed principally through ICTY jurisprudence, including Tadić, whereas ICC responsibility is governed by Article 25 and its own jurisprudence on commission and contribution (Prosecutor v Tadić, 1999; Prosecutor v Lubanga, 2012). Similar facts do not make the legal tests interchangeable.
5.2 Command and Superior Responsibility
Article 28 addresses responsibility arising from a superior's failure to exercise control properly over subordinates. For military commanders and persons effectively acting as commanders, responsibility requires effective command and control, or effective authority and control, over forces that commit crimes “as a result of” the commander's failure to exercise control properly (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 28(a)).
The military standard applies where the commander knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that forces were committing or about to commit crimes. The commander must also have failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress the crimes or to submit the matter to competent authorities. Article 28(b) uses a different knowledge standard for other superiors, requiring knowledge or conscious disregard of information clearly indicating that subordinates were committing or about to commit crimes.
The statutory phrase “as a result of” introduces a causal component, but its precise content has not produced an entirely uniform approach in ICC jurisprudence, including the Bemba proceedings. Command responsibility should accordingly be stated through the elements expressly contained in Article 28 without presenting a disputed causal formulation as settled. Senior rank alone remains insufficient.
5.3 Mental Elements, Defenses, and Superior Orders
Article 30 provides the Rome Statute's general rule on mental elements “[u]nless otherwise provided.” A person must ordinarily act with intent and knowledge regarding the material elements of the crime. The provision defines intent in relation to conduct and consequences and defines knowledge by reference to awareness of circumstances or consequences occurring in the ordinary course of events (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 30).
Other provisions modify or supplement that rule. Genocide contains its own requirement of intent to destroy a protected group, while Article 28 supplies specific knowledge standards for superior responsibility. Articles 31 and 32 regulate grounds excluding criminal responsibility and mistakes of fact or law. Duress, for example, is available only under the conditions prescribed by Article 31, including an imminent threat, a necessary and reasonable response, and the absence of an intention to cause greater harm than the harm avoided.
Superior orders are governed separately by Article 33. Obedience does not ordinarily relieve an individual of criminal responsibility. The limited defense requires a legal obligation to obey the order, lack of knowledge of its unlawfulness, and an order that was not manifestly unlawful; orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are expressly deemed manifestly unlawful (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 33).
6. ICC Jurisdiction and Complementarity
The existence of an international crime does not establish the ICC's jurisdiction over a particular situation or case. The Court is a treaty-based institution with powers defined by the Rome Statute. Subject matter, time, territory, nationality, and the applicable trigger mechanism may all affect whether it can exercise jurisdiction.
Admissibility poses a different question. Even when the Court has jurisdiction, Article 17 may prevent a case from proceeding because of genuine national proceedings, prior adjudication, or insufficient gravity. Jurisdiction and admissibility may be considered within the same procedural setting, but they remain legally distinct inquiries.
This distinction also preserves the difference between the ICC and International Criminal Law as a field. Conduct may constitute a crime under applicable international or national law even when the Rome Statute does not give the ICC authority to adjudicate it.
6.1 How ICC Jurisdiction Is Established
For genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, Articles 11 and 12 provide the ordinary starting point. Subject to the Statute's temporal rules, the Court may generally exercise jurisdiction where the crime was committed on the territory of a State Party, including qualifying vessels or aircraft, or where the accused is a national of a State Party. A non-party State may accept jurisdiction through a declaration under Article 12(3) (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 11–12).
Article 13 then identifies the mechanisms capable of triggering the Court's jurisdiction. A State Party may refer a situation; the Security Council may make a referral acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter; or the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation proprio motu under Article 15. Security Council referrals are not dependent on the ordinary Article 12 territorial or nationality preconditions in the same manner as State Party referrals and proprio motu investigations. The Darfur referral in Resolution 1593 illustrates this route (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 13–15; UNSC, 2005).
Aggression is subject to a special regime. Articles 15 bis and 15 ter impose conditions different from those applicable to the other three crimes, including specific restrictions on the exercise of jurisdiction. Any analysis of ICC jurisdiction must account for those provisions rather than applying Article 12 identically across all four core crimes.
6.2 Complementarity and Admissibility
Complementarity preserves the primary place of national criminal jurisdictions within the Rome Statute system. Article 17 generally makes a case inadmissible where a State with jurisdiction is genuinely investigating or prosecuting it, subject to the statutory rules concerning unwillingness and inability (Rome Statute, 1998, Preamble, arts. 1, 17).
ICC jurisprudence treats admissibility as case-specific. Domestic proceedings must sufficiently correspond to the ICC case, conventionally expressed through the same-person and substantially-same-conduct test. The Appeals Chamber has also made clear that domestic authorities need not use the same legal characterization as the ICC if their proceedings genuinely address substantially the same underlying conduct (Situation in Kenya, 2011; Al-Senussi, 2014; Venezuela I, 2023).
The inquiry begins with the existence of relevant national proceedings. If genuine proceedings corresponding to the ICC case exist, unwillingness or inability may become decisive under Article 17. The Statute separately addresses previous trials and the gravity threshold. A case falling within the Court's jurisdiction is not, for that reason alone, admissible before the ICC (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 17, 20).
7. Official Capacity, Immunities, and State Cooperation
Criminal responsibility, immunity from jurisdiction, and an obligation to arrest or surrender an accused must be kept separate. Article 27 of the Rome Statute provides that official capacity, including service as a Head of State or government, does not exempt a person from criminal responsibility before the ICC and that official immunities do not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction. Article 98 addresses a different issue: cooperation requests that may engage a requested State's international obligations concerning State or diplomatic immunity or certain international agreements (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 27, 98).
The relationship between these provisions was central to the ICC Appeals Chamber's 2019 judgment in Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal. The Chamber held that Head-of-State immunity under customary international law did not bar an international court exercising proper jurisdiction and that Jordan had failed to comply with its obligation to arrest and surrender Omar Al-Bashir. Separately, it considered the consequences of Security Council Resolution 1593 for Sudan's position under the Rome Statute cooperation regime. These strands of reasoning should not be collapsed into the proposition that the Security Council referral itself created the general rule concerning immunity (Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal, 2019).
The position before foreign national courts raises different questions. In the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, the International Court of Justice held that an incumbent foreign minister enjoyed immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction and inviolability before another State's courts despite allegations involving war crimes and crimes against humanity. Immunity was treated as procedural and distinct from the individual's substantive criminal responsibility (ICJ, 2002). The International Law Commission's 2026 draft articles on immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction add an important recent development. Adopted on second reading, draft Article 6 provides that immunity ratione materiae does not apply, under the proposed framework, to specified crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression, torture, apartheid, enforced disappearance, slavery, and the slave trade. The draft articles are not themselves a treaty or an automatic statement of binding customary law, and they do not remove immunity ratione personae enjoyed by qualifying senior officials while in office (ILC, 2026).
Immunity questions also expose the ICC's dependence on State cooperation. States execute arrest and surrender requests, collect evidence, facilitate witness-related measures, trace assets, and assist with enforcement of sentences under the arrangements established by the Statute (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 86, 89, 93, 103). The Court has no independent police force capable of executing warrants throughout national territory. A judicial finding of responsibility and the practical capacity to place an accused before the Court are consequently different problems.
8. International Criminal Justice Beyond the ICC
National jurisdictions remain central to the enforcement of international crimes. The Rome Statute itself preserves this position through complementarity rather than giving the ICC exclusive authority over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or aggression. States may prosecute international crimes on territorial or nationality grounds, through domestic legislation implementing international obligations, or under other jurisdictional bases recognized by the applicable international and national law.
International adjudication has also developed through institutions with very different legal foundations. Nuremberg and Tokyo were postwar military tribunals; the ICTY and ICTR were established by the Security Council; the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia combined national and international elements; and the ICC arose from a multilateral treaty. Their substantive jurisdiction, procedural rules, applicable law, and approaches to individual responsibility have never been completely uniform.
Universal jurisdiction is one mechanism through which national courts may address crimes lacking the ordinary territorial or nationality connection to the prosecuting State. Its scope must be stated carefully. Under the grave-breaches provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, each High Contracting Party must search for persons alleged to have committed, or ordered the commission of, defined grave breaches and bring such persons, regardless of nationality, before its own courts. A State may instead hand the accused over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned where the treaty conditions, including the required prima facie case, are satisfied (Geneva Conventions, 1949, arts. 49, 50, 129, 146).
Beyond that treaty regime, the existence, scope, and conditions of universal jurisdiction vary according to the offense and applicable law. The ICRC's Customary International Humanitarian Law Study formulates Rule 157 as recognizing a right of States to vest universal jurisdiction in their national courts over war crimes, including those committed in international and non-international armed conflicts (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, 2005, Rule 157). That formulation is influential evidence concerning customary IHL rather than an independent source creating the customary rule. Domestic systems may also impose requirements concerning presence, prosecutorial authorization, subsidiarity, or immunity. International Criminal Law cannot be reduced to universal jurisdiction any more than it can be reduced to the ICC.
9. The Reach and Limits of International Criminal Law
A prohibition under International Criminal Law does not guarantee that prosecution will follow. A competent court must possess jurisdiction, the accused must ordinarily be brought within the reach of the relevant proceedings, and allegations must be proved under the applicable evidentiary and procedural standards. International investigations may also depend on State assistance for access to evidence, witnesses, arrests, surrender, and other measures that international courts cannot execute independently (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 54, 86, 93).
The legal possibilities for prosecution are not uniform across States. Domestic legislation, jurisdictional rules, procedural requirements, incorporation of international crimes, and available modes of responsibility differ among national systems. Treaty obligations may require particular forms of criminalization or cooperation, while other aspects of enforcement depend on national law. This variation is part of the decentralized structure of the field rather than an exception to it (Kreß, 2009).
Political and institutional conditions also affect which cases can reach adjudication. ICC jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes depends on the jurisdictional bases established by the Rome Statute, including territorial or nationality links, accepted jurisdiction, and Security Council referrals, while aggression remains subject to its distinct Articles 15 bis and 15 ter regime. State cooperation, territorial access, and the ability to secure custody of suspects can shape enforcement without changing the substantive legal status of the underlying conduct.
International Criminal Law consequently remains a legally plural field. Treaty provisions, customary international law, national implementing legislation, tribunal statutes, general principles, and judicial decisions coexist without forming a single universal criminal code. Their interaction can produce differences in jurisdiction, immunities, liability doctrines, procedure, and enforcement. What unifies the field is narrower but legally significant: certain conduct can attract criminal responsibility under international law, and that responsibility must be attributed to individuals and adjudicated according to applicable legal rules.
Also read
Conclusion
International Criminal Law is concerned principally with the criminal responsibility of individuals for crimes recognized under international law. Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression occupy the center of the contemporary field, but its legal structure extends beyond the definitions of those offenses to questions of responsibility, legality, jurisdiction, immunity, cooperation, and enforcement.
The ICC is the most prominent permanent institution applying this body of law, yet International Criminal Law neither began with the Rome Statute nor ends at the limits of the Court's jurisdiction. National courts, earlier international tribunals, hybrid institutions, treaty regimes, customary law, and general principles remain part of the legal structure through which international crimes are defined and prosecuted.
Severe or politically charged conduct does not become an international crime through characterization alone. Criminal responsibility depends on the applicable offense, its proven elements, the accused's legally recognized connection to the conduct, and the authority of the forum hearing the case. Those requirements explain both the reach of International Criminal Law and the limits that distinguish criminal adjudication from broader claims of political or moral responsibility.
References
Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone (2002) signed at Freetown, 16 January 2002, entered into force 12 April 2002, 2178 UNTS 137.
Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea (2003) signed at Phnom Penh, 6 June 2003, entered into force 29 April 2005, 2329 UNTS 117.
Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2017) Activation of the jurisdiction of the Court over the crime of aggression, Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5, 14 December 2017.
Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2025) The review of the amendments on the crime of aggression, Resolution ICC-ASP/S-1/Res.1, 9 July 2025.
Brown, B.S. (2011) ‘International criminal law: nature, origins and a few key issues’, in Brown, B.S. (ed.) Research Handbook on International Criminal Law. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 3–16.
Cassese, A., Gaeta, P., Baig, L., Fan, M., Gosnell, C. and Whiting, A. (2013) Cassese’s International Criminal Law. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charter of the International Military Tribunal (London Charter) (1945) annexed to the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, signed 8 August 1945, 82 UNTS 279.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951, 78 UNTS 277.
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949) adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 31.
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (1949) adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 85.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (1949) adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 135.
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 287.
Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
International Committee of the Red Cross (n.d.) ‘Rule 157. Jurisdiction over war crimes’ [online]. Customary IHL Database. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule157 (Accessed: 11 August 2026).
International Court of Justice (2002) Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), judgment, 14 February 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 3.
International Court of Justice (2007) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43.
International Criminal Court (n.d.) Elements of Crimes [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/publications/core-legal-texts/elements-crimes (Accessed: 11 August 2026).
International Criminal Court (2011) Prosecutor v Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011 entitled ‘Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute’, Appeals Chamber, 30 August 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-274.
International Criminal Court (2012) Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Trial Chamber I, 14 March 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842.
International Criminal Court (2014) Prosecutor v Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Abdullah Al-Senussi against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 11 October 2013 entitled ‘Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi’, Appeals Chamber, 24 July 2014, ICC-01/11-01/11-565.
International Criminal Court (2016) Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Trial Chamber III, 21 March 2016, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343.
International Criminal Court (2018) Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III’s ‘Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute’, Appeals Chamber, 8 June 2018, ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Red.
International Criminal Court (2019) Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Judgment in the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal, Appeals Chamber, 6 May 2019, ICC-02/05-01/09-397-Corr.
International Criminal Court (2023) Situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela I, Decision authorising the resumption of the investigation pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Statute, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 27 June 2023, ICC-02/18-45.
International Criminal Court (2024) Situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela I, Judgment on the appeal of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s ‘Decision authorising the resumption of the investigation pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Statute’, Appeals Chamber, 1 March 2024, ICC-02/18-89.
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (1998) Prosecutor v Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, judgment, Trial Chamber I, 2 September 1998.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1995) Prosecutor v Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1998) Prosecutor v Zejnil Delalić, Zdravko Mucić, Hazim Delić and Esad Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, judgment, Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1999) Prosecutor v Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, judgment, Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (2000) Prosecutor v Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, judgment, Appeals Chamber, 24 March 2000.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (2001) Prosecutor v Zejnil Delalić, Zdravko Mucić, Hazim Delić and Esad Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, judgment, Appeals Chamber, 20 February 2001.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (2002) Prosecutor v Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač and Zoran Vuković, Cases Nos. IT-96-23-A and IT-96-23/1-A, judgment, Appeals Chamber, 12 June 2002.
International Law Commission (1950) Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II, pp. 374–378, UN Doc. A/1316, paras. 95–127.
International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two, pp. 31–143, reproduced in UN Doc. A/56/10.
International Law Commission (2026) Draft report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-seventh session: Chapter IV, Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, UN Docs. A/CN.4/L.1024 and A/CN.4/L.1024/Add.1, July 2026.
International Military Tribunal (1946) Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, judgment, 1 October 1946, vol. I.
Kreß, C. (2009) ‘International criminal law’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2010) The crime of aggression, Resolution RC/Res.6, 11 June 2010.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 3, as amended.
United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1998) Final Act of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/10, 17 July 1998.
United Nations General Assembly (1946) Affirmation of the Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal, Resolution 95(I), 11 December 1946.
United Nations Security Council (1993) Resolution 827 (1993), UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), 25 May 1993.
United Nations Security Council (1994) Resolution 955 (1994), UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), 8 November 1994.
United Nations Security Council (2005) Resolution 1593 (2005), UN Doc. S/RES/1593 (2005), 31 March 2005.
