The Legal analysis of the Prosecution of State Officials with Imminuty before the International Criminal Court

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.