The Triggering Mechanism of the International Criminal Court

  • R. Udya and Dr. Anushka Mishra Nayak
  • Show Author Details
  • R. Udya

    Research Scholar at LNCT University, Bhopal, India

  • Dr. Anushka Mishra Nayak

    Associate Professor at LNCT University, India

  • img Download Full Paper


Since the ICC is an independent court and is not a part of the United Nations. Its seat at the Hague in the Netherlands. Although the court's expenses are funded priority by states parties, it also received voluntary contributions from governments, international organizations, individuals, corporations and other entities. It is pertinent to know that how ICC shall be working independently when court's expenses are also received by voluntary contributions from our sources. The second important issue is to see whether ICC can work independently when the UN Security Council has referral and deferral powers. In this research paper, my endeavour has been to explain these problems, which are being faced by the ICC in order to trigger its jurisdiction independently. In order to explain the working of the International Criminal Court, it was necessary to define the jurisdiction to which it is applicable. Although the model of the International Court of Justice was available, yet no one had ever tried to create a court with such a wider scope and application. Earlier examples of the Nuremberg Tribunals, Yugoslavia etc. were territorial in nature. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has jurisdiction over crimes committed by the Rwandan nationals in the neighbouring countries in the same period. Accordingly, its jurisdiction is both territorial and as well as personal. The basic difference with these precedents is that the International Criminal Court has been created with the consent of those who will themselves be subject to its jurisdiction. They have agreed that it is crimes committed on their territory or by their nationals, that may be prosecuted. These are the fundamentals of the court’s jurisdiction that individual states are entitled to exercise with respect to the same crimes. Moreover, the drafters of the Rome Statute sought to limit the ability of the court to try cases over which it has, at least in theory, jurisdiction. Only when the domestic justice system is unwilling or is unable to prosecute, can the International Criminal Court take over. This is what the Statute refers to as admissibility. Not every case is admissible even if it has jurisdiction. ICC is getting support from its member states. Unlike other global courts, ICC has less limitation for enforcement. In foreign courts, which rely on universal jurisdiction laws are limited by their lack of international support and political influence to enforce their decisions. Similarly, even global courts such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have little enforcement power. Domestic U.S. courts, on the other hand, possess the jurisdiction and power to a state party to the ICC is a challenge to think of universal jurisdiction of the court and to enforce the decision of the court. To make this court universal in nature, it is necessary to make the jurisdiction of the court fair and suspicion free in the provisions of the Rome Statute.


Research Paper


International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 4, Issue 3, Page 5007 - 5038


Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (, which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.


Copyright © IJLMH 2021