The International Criminal Court And State Sovereignty: Navigating The Tensions Of Global Justice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69980/ajpr.v28i2.437Keywords:
International Criminal Court (ICC), State Sovereignty, Rome Statute, Complementarity Principle, International Criminal JusticeAbstract
This paper critically examines the tension between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the principle of state sovereignty, a foundational tenet of international law. Established through the Rome Statute in 1998, the ICC was designed to prosecute individuals for the most serious international crimes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression particularly when national courts are unwilling or unable to act. While the Court represents a significant advancement in international criminal justice, its operations often intersect contentiously with the concept of state sovereignty. This paper explores the legal and political dimensions of this tension through doctrinal analysis and case studies, highlighting the diverse reactions of states to ICC jurisdiction. The analysis reveals that although the ICC challenges traditional notions of sovereignty, it also reflects a normative shift toward "sovereignty as responsibility." The findings suggest that the ICC’s legitimacy and effectiveness depend on its ability to balance the pursuit of accountability with respect for national autonomy, making this a dynamic and evolving area of international law and politics.
References
Table of Cases
• Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (Judgment) ICC-02/05-01/09, ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 4 March 2009
• Situation in the State of Palestine (Decision on Jurisdiction) ICC-01/18, ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 5 February 2021
Table of Legislation
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3
Secondary Sources
Books
• Bassiouni MC, Introduction to International Criminal Law (2nd edn, Martinus Nijhoff 2013)
• Brownlie I, Principles of Public International Law (7th edn, OUP 2008)
• Cassese A, International Law (2nd edn, OUP 2005)
• Clark R, The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (OUP 2011)
• Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D and Wilmshurst E, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (3rd edn, CUP 2019)
• Gaeta P, The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary (OUP 2009)
• Held D, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus (Polity Press 2004)
• Klabbers J, International Law (CUP 2002)
• Krasner SD, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton University Press 1999)
• Schabas WA, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (4th edn, CUP 2011)
• Schabas WA, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (OUP 2010)
• Slaughter AM, A New World Order (Princeton University Press 2006)
• Teitel R, Transitional Justice (OUP 2000)
• Wippman D, International Law and International Relations: Bridging Theory and Practice (Aspen 2004)
Journal Articles
1. Akande D, ‘The Legal Nature of Security Council Referrals to the ICC and Its Impact on Al Bashir’s Immunities’ (2009) 7 JICJ 333
2. Akande D, ‘ICC Jurisdiction Over War Crimes in Palestine: A Response to Michael Newton’ (2021) EJIL:Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org
3. Akhavan P, ‘The Lord’s Resistance Army Case: Uganda’s Submission of the First State Referral to the ICC’ (2005) 99 AJIL 403
4. Arsanjani MH and Reisman WM, ‘The Law-In-Action of the International Criminal Court’ (2005) 99 AJIL 385
5. Bosco D, ‘The International Criminal Court and Africa: A Relationship in Crisis’ (2014) 51(2) International Politics 183
6. Burke-White WW, ‘Proactive Complementarity: The International Criminal Court and National Courts in the Rome System of International Justice’ (2008) 49 Harvard International Law Journal 53
7. Chesterman S, ‘You, the People: The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building’ (2001) 15 Ethics & International Affairs 89
8. Danner AM, ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’ (2003) 97 AJIL 510
9. Jalloh C, ‘Regionalizing International Criminal Law?’ (2011) 9 JICJ 445
10. Mégret F, ‘Beyond “Fairness”: Understanding the Determinants of International Criminal Procedure’ (2011) 14 UCLA JIL & F 37
11. Murithi T, ‘The African Union and the International Criminal Court: An Embattled Relationship?’ (2013) 11 Institute for Justice and Reconciliation Policy Brief 8
12. Robinson D, ‘The Controversy Over Territorial Jurisdiction at the International Criminal Court’ (2015) 25 Criminal Law Forum 403
13. Roach KC, ‘Comparative Constitutional Responses to Terrorism’ (2009) 8 International Journal of Constitutional Law 497
14. Sadat LN, ‘The International Criminal Court and the Transformation of International Law: Justice for the New Millennium’ (Transnational Publishers 2002)
15. Sloan JP, ‘The International Criminal Court and the Challenge of Deterring Future War Crimes’ (2007) 20(2) LJIL 457
16. Thakur R, ‘Responsibility to Protect: Norms, Laws and the Use of Force in International Politics’ (2016) 28(2) Ethics & International Affairs 121
17. Vilmer J-BJ, ‘The African Union and the International Criminal Court: Counteracting the Crisis’ (2016) 92 International Affairs 1319
Reports and Official Documents
• International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), The Responsibility to Protect (International Development Research Centre 2001)
• United Nations Security Council Resolutions (various cited within context)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License permitting all use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
