As a global institution it certainly has. It has no jurisdiction over most of the world, and has net lost signatories since its birth [1]. And even where it has jurisdiction, it’s unceremoniously ignored [2].
It’s international law. Everything is, by definition, a political matter between sovereign states.
The ICC as an ideal may not be a failure, sure. As an instrument of practically effecting the world, it has failed. More than that, its impotence seems to have emboldened the notion that not only is its specific international law obsolete, but so is the concept of universal rights that states can’t deny.
> ICC is not failed implementation
As a global institution it certainly has. It has no jurisdiction over most of the world, and has net lost signatories since its birth [1]. And even where it has jurisdiction, it’s unceremoniously ignored [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...
[2] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241127-france-says-n...
That's a political matter.
Countries do not join because ICC is a failure.
More countries do not join because ICC is is not failure and is not compromised.
> That's a political matter
It’s international law. Everything is, by definition, a political matter between sovereign states.
The ICC as an ideal may not be a failure, sure. As an instrument of practically effecting the world, it has failed. More than that, its impotence seems to have emboldened the notion that not only is its specific international law obsolete, but so is the concept of universal rights that states can’t deny.
2 replies →