It takes a particular kind of optimism to build a permanent international court for the prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, and then decline to give it any mechanism whatsoever to arrest the people it indicts. This was the optimism of 1998, when 120 nations gathered in Rome to sign the statute creating the International Criminal Court. The assumption, one gathers, was that moral authority would prove sufficient — that heads of state accused of mass murder would simply feel obligated to turn themselves in. One is reminded of the Victorian belief that properly worded letters could resolve territorial disputes.
Twenty-two years after opening its doors in The Hague, the ICC has secured exactly ten convictions. Ten. To put this in perspective, the Municipal Court of Franklin County, Ohio — population roughly 1.3 million — processes more felony convictions in a typical week. The comparison is not entirely fair, of course. Franklin County has police officers.
The Precedent We Have Apparently Forgotten
The architects of the ICC were not, it must be said, working without historical instruction. The Nuremberg trials succeeded in convicting Nazi war criminals for a simple reason: the Allies had won a world war and physically occupied Germany. The defendants were already in custody. The legal innovation was in the charging; the enforcement was accomplished by the 101st Airborne Division. Similarly, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, established in 1993, eventually convicted 90 individuals — but only after NATO conducted bombing campaigns and the European Union made cooperation with the tribunal a condition for membership. Radovan Karadžić spent thirteen years as a fugitive before Serbian authorities, eager for EU accession, finally handed him over.
The lesson was available to anyone who cared to learn it: international justice requires either military defeat or significant economic leverage. Moral suasion, however eloquently expressed in communiqués from The Hague, has not historically proven effective against men who have already demonstrated a willingness to murder civilians.
THE ARREST WARRANT GAP
Of the 45 individuals against whom the ICC has issued arrest warrants since 2002, only 21 have ever appeared before the court. The remaining 24 — including Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, wanted since 2009 for genocide in Darfur — remain at large. Bashir traveled freely to ICC member states on at least twelve occasions while under indictment.
Source: International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor Annual Report, December 2025The Argument They Cannot Quite Make
Defenders of the ICC — and I have been one, in moments of irrational hope — typically argue that the court's value lies not in convictions but in deterrence. The mere existence of accountability mechanisms, the reasoning goes, causes potential war criminals to moderate their behavior. This is what academics call the 'shadow of the court' theory. It is elegant. It is also, as far as anyone can tell, wrong.
A comprehensive study published last year in the Journal of Conflict Resolution examined 47 armed conflicts since the ICC's founding, coding for patterns of civilian targeting before and after the court's involvement. The researchers found no statistically significant deterrent effect. If anything, there was a slight increase in atrocities following the announcement of ICC investigations — a phenomenon the authors attributed to combatants' recognition that they were already facing potential prosecution and therefore had nothing additional to lose. The shadow of the court, it appears, is not particularly frightening when the court cannot actually reach you.
Don't miss the next investigation.
Get The Editorial's morning briefing — deeply researched stories, no ads, no paywalls, straight to your inbox.
The more sophisticated defense of the court — favored by international law professors who have tenure and can therefore afford long-term thinking — is that the ICC represents the slow construction of global norms. Rome wasn't built in a day, et cetera. This argument has the advantage of being unfalsifiable within any human lifespan. It also requires ignoring that the three most powerful nations on Earth — the United States, China, and Russia — have declined to join the court, and that two of them are currently engaged in, or actively supporting, military operations that would certainly interest a prosecutor.
What History Actually Suggests
If we are honest about the historical record, international criminal accountability has succeeded under precisely two conditions: post-war occupation and conditional economic integration. The first is not replicable without major power consensus. The second, however, offers a model that has been curiously underexplored.
Serbia cooperated with the ICTY because it wanted EU membership. Croatia did the same. The tribunal's most significant arrests occurred not because of moral awakening but because Brussels attached strings to market access, visa liberalization, and development funds. The logic was straightforward: you may have your economy, or you may have your war criminals, but you may not have both.
THE LEVERAGE THAT WORKS
Between 2003 and 2011, every major ICTY fugitive was transferred to The Hague following direct linkage to EU accession negotiations. The European Commission's annual progress reports explicitly conditioned advancement on 'full cooperation with the ICTY,' including specific surrender timelines. Croatia's accession was delayed by two years solely over its failure to locate General Ante Gotovina.
Source: European Commission, Enlargement Strategy Papers, 2003-2011The ICC has no equivalent leverage mechanism. It relies instead on what the Rome Statute politely calls 'state cooperation' — a phrase that has come to mean 'states doing whatever they feel like.' When South Africa declined to arrest Omar al-Bashir during his 2015 visit, citing diplomatic immunity concerns, the court issued a finding of non-compliance. South Africa's response was to announce its intention to withdraw from the ICC entirely. This is, one might observe, not how enforcement is supposed to work.
The Reforms That Nobody Wants to Discuss
What would actual enforcement look like? The question is almost never asked in polite company, because the answers are uncomfortable for everyone involved. They would require, at minimum, the following: mandatory economic sanctions against any ICC member state that fails to execute an arrest warrant; travel bans and asset freezes against officials who facilitate non-compliance; and — most controversially — the threat of suspension from international financial institutions for persistent violators.
These measures are entirely within the existing capacity of the United Nations Security Council. They require no treaty amendments, no new institutions, no architectural innovation whatsoever. What they require is political will — specifically, the will of the Council's permanent members, three of whom have demonstrated precisely zero interest in the project of international criminal justice when it might inconvenience their allies.
The court has spent nearly two billion dollars to achieve ten convictions — approximately $190 million per convicted war criminal.
A more radical proposal, advanced by a small group of international law scholars, would create an 'ICC coalition' of willing states that commit to automatic enforcement mechanisms among themselves. Under this framework, any member state failing to execute a warrant would face immediate suspension of trade preferences, development assistance, and diplomatic recognition from all other coalition members. The coalition would be smaller than the current ICC membership but infinitely more credible. Karim Khan, the court's current prosecutor, has hinted at interest in such arrangements. He has also noted, with characteristic understatement, that 'the current system presents certain challenges.'
The Cost of Symbolic Justice
There is a particular cruelty in promising victims of genocide that justice awaits, and then building an institution magnificently designed not to deliver it. The ICC's gleaming headquarters in The Hague cost €206 million. Its courtrooms are state of the art. Its legal briefs are impeccably drafted. And its indictees walk free, year after year, while we congratulate ourselves on the norms we are supposedly constructing.
The survivors of Darfur have now waited sixteen years for any measure of accountability. The victims of Assad's chemical attacks have been told that jurisdiction is complicated. The families of those killed in Ukraine receive assurances that investigations are proceeding apace. Meanwhile, the alleged perpetrators give interviews, attend summits, and occasionally — in what must be the purest expression of international law's impotence — visit ICC member states without incident.
We have, in short, built an elaborate mechanism for the documentation of crimes and the expression of concern. What we have not built is a system of justice. The difference matters. Victims of mass atrocity do not need their suffering catalogued; they need the men who ordered it to face consequences. The ICC, as currently constituted, can offer the former. The latter requires something we have proven unwilling to provide: enforcement with teeth.
There is still time to make the court work. The tools exist. The legal frameworks are in place. What is missing is the political decision to use economic leverage as the enforcers of justice that moral authority has failed to be. Until that decision is made, the ICC will remain what it has become: a museum of good intentions, beautifully appointed, and entirely empty of the men it was built to house.