| Summary/Abstract |
Despite its short life of 16 years, the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’ or ‘Court’) is no stranger to controversy. Indeed, contestation started before the ICC began operations. Throughout the drafting the Rome Statue, the ICC's founding treaty, states such as Germany argued vehemently for the ICC to be granted universal jurisdiction, while the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’ or ‘Council’) remained reticent to relinquish full jurisdiction over the core international crimes (Eikel 2018), including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide (collectively ‘atrocity crimes’). Even after the Rome Statute was passed and the ICC was founded, albeit without universal jurisdiction, it remained embattled. Not only was it criticised for its ineptness at the early stages of its establishment, the Court continued to be condemned for its lack of involvement in global hotspots outside its jurisdiction. For instance, despite being described as the worst humanitarian disaster since the Second World War (Al Hussein 2017), the ICC does not have jurisdiction over alleged atrocity crimes in Syria – namely, because Syria is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, but also because Russia and China as permanent members of the UNSC have blocked attempts to refer it to the ICC.
|