Do we need the International Criminal Court?

The International Criminal Court was founded to prosecute the world’s worst crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It has secured historic convictions, but its effectiveness is under scrutiny.

US opposition has been a long-standing challenge. Donald Trump previously rejected the ICC’s legitimacy, and now, early in his second presidential term, he has imposed sanctions on its top prosecutor. The move echoes past tensions but raises new concerns about the court’s ability to function under external pressure.

The ICC also relies on member states to arrest and transfer suspects. A recent case in Italy has highlighted the court’s enforcement difficulties, as Italian authorities deported a Libyan suspect instead of extraditing him to The Hague. Such incidents fuel questions about the ICC’s global authority.

Despite its high-profile cases, the court has only secured 11 convictions in 23 years. Its slow trials and high costs have drawn criticism, leading some to question whether reform—or even an alternative—is needed. But with 125 member states still backing its mission, is the ICC an institution the world can afford to lose?

Contributors: Dr Viviane Dittrich, Deputy Director of the International Nuremberg Principles Academy in Germany Gerry Simpson, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics in the UK  Rachel Kerr, Professor of War and Society at King's College London in the UK  Mark Kirsten, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, Canada

Presented by Charmaine Cozier Produced by Louise Clarke and Bara’atu Ibrahim Editor Tara McDermott Technical Producer Toby James Production co-ordinator Liam Morrey

Image credit: Michael M. Santiago via Getty Images