The ICC beyond the courtroom: Activities, warnings, and impact

Abstract

Although the ICC is, first and foremost, a court, it is also a quasi-judicial body and a large international bureaucracy. In addition to trying suspected perpetrators, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor makes statements about instances of mass atrocity, conducts site visits, and puts situations under preliminary examination. Although much of the scholarly research has focused on the ICC’s prosecutorial work, the Court’s work beyond the courtroom is equally important for understanding how and under which conditions the ICC can facilitate accountability and deter atrocity crimes. In this article, we document the breadth and scope of the ICC’s work beyond the courtroom. First, we offer a theoretical framework for understanding these activities. We then introduce a new dataset on the ICC’s activities beyond the courtroom, which we use to answer three questions: (1) What activities does the ICC undertake before and in parallel to prosecutions? (2) How do those activities align with the threats the ICC makes to prosecute perpetrators? (3) When does the ICC follow through with its threats? We conclude by considering the broader impacts of the ICC’s work beyond the courtroom, which will continue to shape the role of the ICC in the coming decades.

Acknowledgments

A special thanks goes to Madison Whitney Zucco for her excellent research assistance. All errors are our own.

Notes

1 At times the ICC does not specify the actors but does list crimes, which falls into the category of “other actors.” Paramilitary groups, pro-government forces/government-backed militias, and political opposition are among the other actors included in this category. The event-level dataset includes a qualitative variable that describes actors when “other” is indicated.

2 Where r is the Pearson correlation coefficient and p is the significance level. Descriptions of the strength of the correlation follow Cohen’s (1988) conventions.

3 The arrest warrants variable is binary, as data discrepancies on the ICC’s website make it difficult to construct an accurate count variable. T-tests permit us to examine whether there are statistically significant differences in the means of the arrest warrants and no warrants groups for the various types of OTP warnings. The significance level for the two-tailed test is reported.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Courtney Hillebrecht

Courtney Hillebrecht is the Hitchock Family Chair in Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and professor of political science at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, where she also directs the Forsythe Family Program on Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Her expertise is in international human rights law and international human rights and criminal adjudication. She is the author of Saving the international justice regime: Beyond backlash against international courts (2021, Cambridge University Press) and Domestic politics and international human rights tribunals: The Problem of Compliance (2014, Cambridge University Press).

Hannah Roesch Read

Hannah Roesche Read holds a PhD in political science from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Her research centers on international human rights law and the internationalization of internal armed conflict. She is currently an analyst in the biotechnology sector.