Abstract

The efficacy of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) role in adjudicating war crimes appears increasingly besieged by the maze-like complexities of its jurisdictional framework, especially with regard to the concept of complementarity. This research undertakes a critical exegesis of the ICC’s paradigm of complementarity, with a dissection of its nuances and complexities in the adjudication of war crimes. Through a critical analysis of the ICC’s statutes and relevant literature, this research seeks to explicate the dialectics of the ICC’s role in adjudicating international crimes and the sacrosanct concept of state sovereignty. The ICC's complementarity principle, as outlined in Article 17 of the ICC's Rome Statute, is ostensibly intended to ensure that the ICC only acts where national courts are either unwilling or unable to prosecute. However, as this paper argues, the ICC's interpretation and application of the complementarity principle has led to a jurisdictional stalemate, which has undermined the ICC's effectiveness in the prosecution of war crimes. Through an analysis of landmark cases such as Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Prosecutor v. Uhuru Kenyatta, this research aims to reveal the ICC's struggles in dealing with the ambiguous distinction between national and international jurisdictions. Moreover, this paper seeks to critically examine the ICC's over-reliance on state cooperation and, as a result, the ICC's deference to national sovereignty, which has led to impunity for perpetrators of war crimes. In addition, the research will reveal the chilling effect of the ICC's complementarity paradigm, which has led to a jurisdictional stalemate. Ultimately, it is the position of this paper that the ICC's complementarity principle, though well-intentioned, has become a jurisprudential bottleneck that is preventing the ICC from effectively prosecuting war crimes. In order to transcend this jurisprudential bottleneck, this research proposes a recalibration of the ICC's complementarity paradigm, focusing on proactive engagement with national jurisdictions and a better appreciation of the complex interplay between national and international jurisdictions. Ultimately, it is the position of this paper that by reinvigorating the ICC's commitment to international justice, the ICC can transcend the jurisdictional bottleneck that is currently preventing it from effectively prosecuting war crimes.

Keywords