Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Jul. 17 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9 [hereinafter cited as Rome Statute  ]. عربي, 中文, English, Français, Ελληνικά, Русский, Español.

Presidential Executive Order 14203: Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court, 90 FR 9369 (Feb. 6, 2025). Available online.

Presidential Executive Order 13928: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated with the International Criminal Court, 85 FR 115 (Jun. 11, 2020). Available online.

Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Secretary of State, The International Criminal Court’s Illegitimate Prosecutions (May 15, 2020). Available online.

Office of the Prosecutor, ICC, Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice (Sep. 2007). Available online.

Eugene Kontorovich, Editorial, Is the International Criminal Court Biased Against Israel?, Wash. Post, Jan. 5, 2015. Available online.

This article argues that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is structurally ill-suited to impartially address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, contending that it favors Palestinian interests over Israeli concerns. The author claims the ICC’s institutional weaknesses and political pressures impede its ability to handle cases involving complex, ongoing conflicts. Highlighting previous ICC cases, such as those against leaders from Kenya and Sudan, the article points to the Court’s inability to prosecute unwilling regimes and how this “playbook” could benefit Palestinian interests. It further criticizes the ICC Prosecutor’s reliance on politically driven General Assembly resolutions over established legal definitions, which, the author argues, undermines the ICC’s independence. This perceived bias, combined with a lack of accountability for Palestinian non-cooperation, leads the author to view the ICC as a strategic tool for Palestinians, used to pressure Israel while avoiding reciprocal scrutiny.

Graham Threatens to Sanction U.S. Allies if They Arrest Netanyahu, Gallant, Jewish News Syndicate, Nov. 24, 2024. Available online.

Eugene Kontorovich, Editorial, The ICC’s Brazen Anti-Israel Bias, Wall St. J., Jun. 9, 2024. Paywall.

The article critiques the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent decision to pursue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders for alleged war crimes, arguing that this move reflects a deep-seated bias within the Court. The U.S. House recently passed a bill threatening sanctions on ICC officials if the warrants proceed, citing concerns over targeting Israel—a nation with an established legal system that does not recognize ICC jurisdiction. The article claims that ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan relied on consultants who have publicly expressed strong anti-Israel sentiments, undermining the appearance of neutrality. Key figures on the advisory panel, including Kevin Jon Heller and Baroness Helena Kennedy, have voiced controversial opinions on Israel, raising questions about their impartiality. The article asserts that by selecting such advisers, Mr. Khan has potentially compromised the integrity of the investigation, which could damage the ICC’s credibility.

Harry Davies, Revealed: Israeli Spy Chief “Threatened” ICC Prosecutor Over War Crimes Inquiry, The Guardian, May 28, 2024. Available online.

Harry Davies, Bethan McKernan, Yuval Abraham & Meron Rapoport, Spying, Hacking and Intimidation: Israel’s Nine-Year “War” on the ICC Exposed, The Guardian, May 28, 2024. Available online.

Is the ICC Biased Against African Countries? Interview of Luis Moreno Ocampo and Mahmood Mamdani by Mehdi Hasan, Al Jazeera, Mar. 12, 2016. Video.

Moreno Ocampo: “I Follow Evidence, Not Politics”, IPI (Jan. 20, 2012). Available online.

M. Cherif Bassiouni, Justice and Peace: The Importance of Choosing Accountability Over Realpolitik, 35 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 191, 191 (Feb. 28, 2003). Available online, archived.

Pearce Clancy & Richard Falk, The ICC and Palestine: Breakthrough and End of the Road?, 50 J. Palestine Stud. 56 (2021). Paywall, doi.

This article asserts that the ICC’s ruling affirming territorial jurisdiction over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip have momentous potential implications for broader accountability efforts regardless of whether attempts to prosecute Israeli perpetrators are ultimately frustrated. The authors argue that this legal event shed light on both the limitations of the court and the legal and geopolitical challenges it faces in cases where suspected perpetrators wield significant influence in international political arenas. The authors conclude by arguing that the ICC gained credibility precisely because it has the institutional courage to take on the architects of Israeli criminality.

Phil Clark, The International Criminal Court in Africa and the Politics of International Justice, Oxford Res. Encyclo. (Apr. 2019). Paywall, doi.

(“The International Criminal Court (ICC) has generated considerable controversy since it came into force in 2002, principally because of its overriding focus on African conflict situations and suspects. This has led to accusations that the ICC is a neocolonial meddler in African affairs, wielding undue and unaccountable influence over the domestic political arena. Drawing on the author’s field research in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo since 2006 this article contends that the neocolonialism critique of the ICC exaggerates the power of the court while underestimating the capacity of African states to use the ICC to their own ends. Delivering distanced justice from the Hague with limited expertise on African societies and spending scant time in the field, the ICC has failed to grapple sufficiently with complex political dynamics ‘on the ground.’ Combined with the court’s heavy reliance on state cooperation, these factors have enabled African governments to use the ICC to target their political and military enemies while protecting themselves from prosecution. This has also emboldened African states in continuing to commit atrocity crimes against civilians, especially during periods of mass conflict and fraught national elections. While claiming to hover above the political fray, the ICC has become heavily politicized and instrumentalized by African states, with lasting and damaging consequences for the practice of national politics across Africa. To avoid being willfully used by African governments, the ICC must bolster its political expertise and become politically savvier. Rather than claiming to be neutral while hovering above the domestic terrain, the ICC must embrace its inherently political nature and deliver justice in a way that improves rather than undermines the practice of national and community-level politics across Africa.”).

Marieke de Hoon, The Future of the International Criminal Court. On Critique, Legalism and Strengthening the ICC’s Legitimacy, 17 Int’l Crim. L. Rev. 591 (2017). Available online, doi.

The author examines whether the ICC is a political court by analyzing its operations and the external pressures it faces. De Hoon argues that while the ICC’s legal framework aims for impartiality, it operates within a politically charged environment where decisions are often shaped by state cooperation and U.N. Security Council referrals. This dynamic has fueled accusations of selective justice, particularly its focus on African cases, and raised concerns about its legitimacy. The article concludes that the ICC is not inherently political but must navigate unavoidable political pressures, suggesting reforms to strengthen its independence and transparency.

Benjamin Duerr, Twenty Years On: The ICC and the Politicization of its Mechanisms, The Global Observatory (Aug. 7, 2018). Available online.

This article explores the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) politicization over its 20-year history, focusing on its limitations and the impact of political pressures on its effectiveness. Although established to prosecute grave crimes based on an impartial legal framework, the ICC’s work is often influenced by the political motivations of state referrals, as seen in cases from Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and most recently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By examining the court’s engagement in these situations, the article highlights the challenges the ICC faces in navigating political alliances, securing cooperation, and achieving independent investigations. It argues that while the ICC attempts to maintain an apolitical stance, acknowledging its operational context more openly could increase transparency regarding its limitations and its need to balance legal and political realities.

Shannon Fyfe, The Office of the Prosecutor: Seeking Justice or Serving Global Imperialism?, 18 Int’l Crim. L. Rev. 988 (2018). Available online, doi.

(“The international criminal courts and tribunals, especially the ICC, have been strongly criticized for their susceptibility to political influence. Some have argued that the ICC has a distinctly Western bias and is participating in a new kind of imperialism in Africa. Others argue that history and the complicity of the West should disqualify the international community from demanding the prosecution of individuals participating in conflicts resulting directly from colonialism. Many have focused on the nature of the creation of the judicial bodies and the inherent political nature of judicial decisions regarding whom to prosecute. In this article, I offer a normative defense of the ICC, in which I acknowledge the ICC’s structural protections against impermissible political influence, along with the vulnerabilities of the Chief Prosecutor to claims of distributive and substantive injustice.”).

Catherine Gegout, The International Criminal Court: Limits, Potential and Conditions for the Promotion of Justice and Peace, 34 TWQ 800 (2013). Available online, doi.

(“The International Criminal Court (ICC) aims to promote not only justice, but also peace. It has been widely criticised for doing neither, yet it has to contend with some severe structural and political difficulties: it has limited resources, it faces institutional restrictions, it is manipulated by states, and it is criticised for an alleged selectivity in the way it dispenses justice. However, the ICC could contribute significantly to the promotion of international justice and peace, and have a major impact on the prevention of crime, since its prosecutions represent a clear threat to highly placed individuals who commit serious crimes. While this article concentrates on the work of the ICC in Africa, the only continent where it has issued indictments against suspected criminals, it also looks at its efforts on other continents. It argues that, in the larger international context, the contribution of the ICC to international justice and peace depends on its institutional power and the support it receives from states, on its own impartial work, and on the way it is perceived by potential criminals and victims in the world.”).

Courtney Hillebrecht & Scott Straus, Who Pursues the Perpetrators? State Cooperation with the ICC, 39 Hum. Rts. Q. 162 (Feb. 2017). Paywall, doi.

(“Despite the International Criminal Court’s increased prominence in international politics, there remains marked variation in states’ cooperation with the ICC. This article asks why do states cooperate with the ICC following an indictment, arrest warrant or request for information, and how do these patterns of cooperation affect the Court’s ability to constrain state behavior? Using comparative case studies from Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire, and Libya, we suggest that states’ cooperation with the ICC is a function of domestic political calculations, tempered by states’ international partners and ambitions and the ICC’s own learning process.”).

Patryk I. Labuda, Beyond Rhetoric: Interrogating the Eurocentric Critique of International Criminal Law’s Selectivity in the Wake of the 2022 Ukraine Invasion, 36 Leiden J. Int’l L. 1095 (2023). Available online, doi.

The author explores whether the ICC’s prioritization of cases involving Ukraine reflects a shift from its earlier focus on African cases, which has long been criticized as Eurocentric and politically motivated. The paper argues that while the ICC’s actions in Ukraine highlight its responsiveness to high-profile global conflicts, they also reinforce perceptions of bias, as similar attention has not been afforded to conflicts outside Europe. This perceived inconsistency is analyzed in the context of political influence on the Court’s operations, including referrals by powerful states and international organizations. The authors conclude that the ICC’s current trajectory risks undermining its legitimacy unless it addresses these accusations of selectivity and prioritizes cases based on objective criteria rather than political considerations.

Brian D. Lepard, How Should the ICC Prosecutor Exercise His or Her Discretion? The Role of Fundamental Ethical Principles, 43 John Marshall L. Rev. 553 (2010). Available online.

This article argues for a “fundamental ethics” approach to prosecutorial discretion. It supports its interpretations of the Rome Statute on the grounds that there are many definitions of justice, including ones that have peace and human rights as essential components.

Isabella Mingo & Maria Paola Faggiano, Trust in Institutions Between Objective and Subjective Determinants: A Multilevel Analysis in European Countries, 151 Soc. Indicators Res. 815 (Jun. 2020). Paywall, doi.

(“The main aim of this paper is to analyse: (1) if and how much the spread of trust in institutions is different among the EU citizens and (2) what are the determinants of trust, deepening the intensity and the direction of the relationships with subjective and objective indicators. The authors’ purpose is to outline the differences among the EU countries regarding trust in national and international institutions, simultaneously considering macro (country) and micro (individual) level of analysis by using a multilevel approach.”).

Torque Mude, Demystifying the International Criminal Court (ICC) Target Africa Rhetoric, 7 OJPS 178 (Jan. 2017). Available online, doi.

(“The ongoing debate on the ICC’s selective application of international criminal law targeting Africans has had negative implications on the international court and the law it applies. As a consequence of the political rhetoric that the ICC targets Africa, African leaders and their sympathisers have tended to view the court with contempt and some have expressed intentions to withdraw their membership of the court. Against this background, this paper examines the argument that the ICC targets Africa which amounts to an affront to international criminal law and its objective to end impunity to achieve international justice. The conclusion drawn from this study is that the assertion that the ICC targets Africa is a mere political rhetoric that warrants demystification. It is a political rhetoric advanced by African leaders to manipulate their way out of the responsibility to be accountable to international criminal law. Furthermore, the notion that the court targets Africans lacks substantive credibility as it ignores several structural and technical underpinnings such as the jurisdictional triggers, the role of the United Nations Security Council (S.C.) and other functional modalities that guide the operation of the court.”).

Tim Murithi, Ensuring Peace and Reconciliation While Holding Leaders Accountable: The Politics of ICC Cases in Kenya and Sudan, 40 Afr. Dev. 73 (2015). Available online.

(“The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established as a permanent independent institution to prosecute individuals who have committed or are implicated in the most serious crimes of international concern including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This study assesses the challenge of ensuring peace and reconciliation while holding leaders accountable, with specific reference to the politics of the ICC cases in Sudan (Darfur) and Kenya. In particular, this article argues that the issue of prosecuting alleged perpetrators is problematic with respect to the cases that the ICC is currently engaged in. The study argues that since the ICC has become involved in peace, reconciliation and political processes, it thus has the potential to disrupt such initiatives if its interventions are not appropriately sequenced. The study further argues that both President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and subsequently President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, managed to politicize the ICC interventions in their countries. The article concludes that this process of politicization of the Court’s interventions in Sudan and Kenya, eventually led the ICC into a political stand—off with the African Union (AU), with the United Nations Security Council being an unresponsive but implicated secondary actor. The study also concludes that since neither the ICC nor the AU have managed to find a way out of the impasse, there is a need to develop some innovative strategies. This article therefore offers some insights into a prospective way forward.”).

Steven C. Roach, How Political Is the ICC? Pressing Challenges and the Need for Diplomatic Efficacy, 19 Global Governance 507 (2013). Paywall, doi.

(“The International Criminal Court faces many daunting political challenges in Kenya, Libya, and Sudan. It has addressed these challenges and defended its impartiality in these situations by insisting that it remains an apolitical institution. This article challenges the conventional focus on the ICC’s apolitical nature by adopting an alternative approach that examines its political and pragmatic role in seeking mutual accommodation. It argues that the ICC can and should seek mutual accommodation rather than simply justice under the Rome Statute. In doing so, the article develops and applies the term diplomatic efficacy, or the political capacity of the ICC to produce acceptable solutions, by addressing the soft power dimension of such efficacy. The ICC’s diplomatic efficacy not only reflects its special role as an independent court or agent in the interstate system, but also represents a practical and strategic attempt to manage the political problems that its interventions and deferral to national authorities may create. The article concludes that the ICC’s political efficacy can help to resolve the incongruities between proactive complementarity and the provisions of cooperation encoded in the Rome Statute.”).

Nadia Shamsi, The ICC: A Political Tool? How the Rome Statute is Susceptible to the Pressures of More Power States, 24 Willamette J. Int’l L. & Disp. Resol. 85 (2016). Paywall.

In the context of the potential role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in addressing war crimes committed during the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, this article looks at the political sensitivity surrounding the Israel-Gaza conflict, with both Israel and Palestinian groups accused of war crimes, and the broader implications of this legal decision for the ICC’s credibility, judicial independence, and its role in international law.

Richard H. Steinberg, Politics and Justice at the International Criminal Court, 57 Israel L. Rev. 308 (Sep. 2024). Available online, doi.

Richard H. Steinberg, Lecture: To What Extent Should the ICC Office of the Prosecutor Consider or Engage in Politics to Advance International Justice?, ICC Forum (Jan. 8, 2013). Video.

Michael J. Struett, Why the International Criminal Court Must Pretend to Ignore Politics, 26 Ethics & Int’l Aff. 83 (2012). Available online, doi.

This article discusses the inevitability of the ICC’s political involvement due to its status as an international criminal court. It asserts that consideration of politics is necessary, however that because of the risk to the court’s legitimacy as an independent body, acknowledgment of this consideration cannot occur. It relies on previous tribunals as an example for how the ICC must build credibility.

C.F. Neels Swanepoel, A Legal-Political Commentary on the Strained Relationship Between Africa and the International Criminal Court, and the Prospects of the Extended African Court of Justice and Human Rights, 20 Stichproben 55 (2020). Available online, doi.

(“The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world’s first and only permanent court for the investigation and prosecution of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after 1 July 2002, has been hailed as the greatest event since the advent of the United Nations (UN). The relationship between some African states and the ICC has however become fragile and strained. The situation has worsened since the Al-Bashir controversy […]. [T]his article examines the most cited reasons for this precarious relationship. Some explanations seem more valid than others: African states’ claims that the ICC targets Africans and threatens state sovereignty on the continent simply do not hold water. On the other hand, Africa’s unease with the UN system, particularly the vexed veto system, might carry more weight, suggesting that the continent’s discontent with the ICC is less about the court itself, and more about the UN and Security Council system and composition.”).

Philippa Webb, The ICC Prosecutor’s Discretion Not to Proceed in the “Interests of Justice”, 50 Crim. L. Q. 305 (Jan. 2005). Available online.

This article provides a framework for an interpretation of the interests of justice that considers peace negotiations and security reasons. It bases this argument on a balance of the discretionary nature of the articles and the emphasis on preventing impunity. It supports the inclusion of peace and security interests on grounds of the potential to cause harm, and implies that it would not be in the interests of justice to investigate where consequences would be drastic.

Oumar Ba, States of Justice: The Politics of the International Court (CUP 2020). Paywall, doi.

David Bosco, Rough Justice: The International Criminal Court in a World of Power Politics (OUP Jan. 2014). Paywall.

Bosco explores the ICC’s complex relationship with global power dynamics. The book addresses the question of whether the ICC is a political court, examining how major powers have influenced its operations and decisions. While the court aims to uphold international justice and accountability, its reliance on state cooperation for enforcement has made it susceptible to geopolitical pressures. Bosco argues that powerful states—like the United States, China, and Russia—exert indirect control the ICC’s scope and actions. For example, Bosco discusses instances where ICC investigations or prosecutions appear to align with the interests of dominant nations or reflect selective justice, raising concerns about its impartiality. The book concludes that while the ICC is not inherently political, its structure and reliance on power politics limit its ability to function as a purely judicial body.

Holly Cullen, Phillip Kastner & Sean Richmond eds., The Politics of International Criminal Law (Dec. 2020). Paywall.

Mark Kersten, Between Justice and Politics: The ICC’s Intervention in Libya, in Contested Justice: The Politics and Practice of International Criminal Court Interventions 456, 469 (Christian De Vos, Sara Kendall & Carsten Stahn eds., CUP 2015). Available online, doi.

Tim Murithi, Judicial Imperialism: The Politicisation of International Criminal Justice in Africa (Fanele Sep. 2019). Available online.

Steven C. Roach, Politicizing the International Criminal Court: The Convergence of Politics, Ethics, and Law (Rowman & Littlefield Aug. 2006). Paywall;

Christopher Rudolph, Power and Principle: The Politics of International Criminal Courts 6 (Cornell U. Press Apr. 18, 2017). Paywall.