Last week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) seemed close to capturing a Libyan warlord. However, instead of taking him into custody, Italy, a member state, sent back the leader of a notorious detention network. This decision left the ICC without any upcoming trials, marking the first time since 2006, when the court arrested its first suspect, that it has had no cases pending.
Despite its empty docket, the court still operates with a $200 million annual budget and is staffed with many legal professionals eager to target high-profile figures like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Danya Chaikel from the International Federation for Human Rights criticized the situation, stating that the lack of trials harms the court’s credibility. “The point of the ICC is to investigate and prosecute those most responsible for international crimes,” she emphasized.
For nearly two decades, the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world’s only permanent global tribunal for prosecuting individuals responsible for the most serious crimes, has not faced this situation.
The first person to be convicted by the court in The Hague was Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga. In 2012, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison for recruiting child soldiers.
Since Thomas Lubanga’s trial, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has seen a gradual but consistent flow of cases. So far, the court has convicted 11 individuals, with three verdicts still pending.
The ICC has also issued 32 arrest warrants, targeting suspects ranging from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin to Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, and Gamlet Guchmazov, accused of torture in South Ossetia, Georgia.
However, the court is facing significant external pressure. On his first day in office, U.S. President Donald Trump reinstated an executive order from his previous term, which imposed sanctions on ICC staff. Additionally, a bill that could sanction the court as an institution has passed one chamber of Congress, but it is currently stalled in the Senate due to opposition from Democrats.
Fatou Bensouda, the previous prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), described facing “thug-style tactics” during her tenure. In 2023, the court was hit by a cyberattack that disrupted its systems for months, and some technical issues remain unresolved. Additionally, in 2022, the Dutch intelligence service uncovered a sophisticated plot by a Russian spy, who was using a fake Brazilian identity to try to work as an intern at the court.
The current prosecutor, British lawyer Karim Khan, has requested an unprecedented 24 arrest warrants. However, many suspects—such as Russian President Vladimir Putin—are likely to remain beyond the court’s reach. Both Russia and Israel are not members of the ICC and do not recognize its jurisdiction, making it extremely unlikely that these countries would extradite their citizens, especially their leaders, to The Hague.
Mark Kersten, an international criminal justice expert at the University of the Fraser Valley, notes that the ICC has not issued arrest warrants for individuals who are realistically likely to be arrested. As Danya Chaikel from the International Federation for Human Rights points out, it is ultimately up to individual countries to arrest suspects and bring them to the court. Her organization oversees nearly 200 human rights groups worldwide.
Many of the 125 member states of the International Criminal Court (ICC) are unwilling to arrest suspects for political reasons. For example, during a state visit last year, Mongolia rolled out the red carpet for Russian President Vladimir Putin, disregarding its obligation to detain him. Similarly, South Africa and Kenya refused to arrest former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir when he visited their countries. Al-Bashir, who was ousted in a 2019 coup, has still not been handed over to the ICC by Sudanese authorities.
Italy also refused to execute an ICC arrest warrant for Libyan warlord Ossama Anjiem, claiming the warrant contained procedural errors. As a result, Anjiem was released by a ruling from Rome’s Court of Appeal. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stated that the decision was not a government choice. However, Italy, a founding member of the court, may have had its own reasons for not carrying out the warrant. A trial in The Hague could have attracted unwanted scrutiny of Italy’s migration policies, particularly its support for the Libyan coast guard, which it funds to prevent migrants from leaving the country.
There are few consequences for countries that fail to arrest individuals wanted by the court. Judges ruled that South Africa, Kenya, and Mongolia failed to fulfill their responsibilities, but by the time these rulings were made, the suspects had already left their territories.