Challenges in the enforcement of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court, established in 1998, was intended to play a pivotal role in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the most heinous mass atrocities worldwide. After the trauma of the Second World War and the distrust of the Cold War that made international cooperation impossible and allowed many crimes to go unpunished, the Court was seen as a new hope for international criminal law, ushering in a new era of universal responsibility regardless of status and influence. Unfortunately, many feel that it has not lived up to its expectations by failing to prosecute numerous of the individuals responsible for international crimes in recent years. This thesis analyzes the various factors contributing to the difficulties that the Court faces in the enforcement of its jurisdiction, taking into account the strictly legal gaps, as well as political challenges. Commencing with a nuanced portrayal of the history of international criminal law, the work explores the work and legal implications of prior international criminal tribunals that paved the way for the ICC. Building upon the experience of these past bodies, it then continues with an investigation of certain troubling structural challenges within the Rome Statute, illuminating paradoxes and the asymmetrical dynamics of UN Security Council referrals and deferrals contained in the document. Finally, adding another layer of analysis to the subject of the ICC, the thesis explores the complexity of international politics and its influence on the capabilities of the Court, casting light on the influence of powerful states, particularly the P5, and their wielded veto powers. It attempts to outline and explain the ICC's basic conundrum: expected to bring universal justice to victims of mass atrocities, yet – as exemplified by the case study of Omar al-Bashir's evasion of arrest – reliant on state cooperation and vulnerable to being circumvented.