The Inadequacies of International Law and the ICC

 Cassie Lawler

International Politics: POLS 170-03

Professor Shirk

Due: Wednesday, March 23, 2022

Blog Post #3

The Inadequacies of International Law and the ICC

In 2001, the International Criminal Court was created in an attempt to pick up where domestic law left off. International law’s purpose has since become convoluted as proponents of the anti-ICC viewpoint believe that the organization does not do enough to fulfill their mission. But above all else, the ICC was created on the basis of a few core tenets. These tenets include the promotion of peace and order in the world, advancement of human rights and protection, and fostering of stable and organized international relations. International law mimics domestic law in the sense that it is was founded upon the same fundamental principles but has such core differences that put the two forms of legal systems in entirely different arenas. On the most basic level, domestic law applies to citizens while international law is applicable to nations, governing relations among them. However, where national law has government authorities that enforce and uphold the law, international law has no prosecutorial power or enforcment capacity.

Critics of international law and the ICC are quick to point out its fatal flaws that make its aforementioned objectives unattainable as the theoretical prospect of international law is much sweeter than the actual practice. In actuality, the ICC has no power to uphold convictions, no backing from the security council, immense due process deficiencies, and utter judge bias. Due process is the legal requirement that a government must respect all of a person’s legal rights before taking or limiting their life, liberty, or property, and when a government does not obey due process it is considered a violation of an individual’s rights. In simplest terms, the ICC lacks due process and this fact delegitimizes the ICC as a legal body in totality. As Ted Galen Carpenter writes in his NYT article “At I.C.C., Due Process Deficiencies Mar Credibility,” “the willingness of international tribunals to reach verdicts and impose long prison sentences based on a simple majority vote is another alarming feature.” Apart from this, the ICC lacks any sort of distinguishable power in the wake of convictions and with little to no backing from the security council, the ICC’s image of power is grossly different than expectations. Another key detriment to the body is the fact that it is such a westernized idea, judge bias majorly skews decisions made by the court.

In 2017, President Donald Trump ordered an airstrike on Syria that distinctly broke international law. The U.S. fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Shayrat airbase. Russia was quick to call this out as a breach of international law, declaring the strike was “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law." Because the US was considered an actor using military force in a situation where it is explicitly prohibited by the UN, this attack broke international law but the US was faced with no consequences. This is not an isolated case, as many nations that break international law are not even confronted with adversity due to the hassle it presents and convoluted ways of the ICC. In its current state, the ICC is certainly not worth the high price tag it boasts. The question left unanswered is how feasible it will be to make the necessary modifications to make the ICC worth it.