Abstract:
This study, investigates the challenges faced by the ICC in holding high-ranking
state officials accountable for international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity. At the heart of the issue is the tension between the
traditional principle of state immunity designed to protect the sovereignty of states
and their officials and the growing international consensus that no individual should
be immune from prosecution for serious violations of international law. Article 27 of
the Rome Statute rejects the immunity defense for individuals before the ICC,
marking a significant departure from customary international law.
The study explores the legal framework governing immunity, including the provisions
of the Rome Statute, customary international law, and landmark case law such as
the Nuremberg Trials. It also addresses the practical challenges faced by the ICC,
including state non-cooperation, political considerations, and the lack of effective
enforcement mechanisms. The reliance on state cooperation often leaves the ICC
unable to enforce its decisions, particularly when the accused holds substantial
political influence or support.
Through a critical analysis of case studies, the research identifies significant gaps in
the ICC‘s ability to prosecute state officials effectively and offers recommendations
for strengthening international cooperation, clarifying legal norms, and enhancing the
operational capabilities of the ICC. The study ultimately contributes to the discourse
on how international law can evolve to address the balance between state
sovereignty and accountability, ensuring that justice is achieved even in the face of
political and diplomatic obstacles.
