The ICC’s Power Problem

September 1st, 2025
Sophia Amundgaard

“In the prospect of an international criminal court (ICC) lies the promise of universal justice,” asserted then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan at a 1997 International Bar Association Summit.

Unfortunately, Annan’s “promise” couldn’t be further from reality. Just 23 years after its initiation, the ICC has convicted solely 11 individuals despite pledging to end impunity for all those responsible for "crimes that shock the conscience of humanity”—genocide, war crimes, attacks on humanity and crimes of aggression.

Yet with over $2 billion in funding and 6.8 billion civilians living under politically corrupt systems, the pressing question is why the ICC hasn’t done its job.

The answer? They systematically can’t.

Jurisdiction

Based in The Hague, the ICC was built to complement rather than replace local court systems. As a result, its jurisdiction is up to the interpretation of those who ratified the 1998 Rome Statute: a select 125 countries primarily in South America and Europe.

Not surprisingly, few major powers have opened their borders to the court. Among those abstaining from the ICC’s jurisdiction are Russia, China, North Korea, Türkiye, Iran, Israel and many more—the majority of which function in the bottom quarter of the 2024 Human Rights Index.

But that's exactly the problem. Unlike most peacekeeping organizations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the ICC requires the participation of ‘corrupt’ nations to function. The Rome Statute prevents the ICC from crossing borders to capture those it aims to detain, shifting the burden of following through with its rulings onto local governments. Thus, without an official military or caucus of global superpowers, the extent to which the ICC can actually enforce its rulings is entirely dependent on the nations that elect to participate. But when the vast majority of countries with the court’s target pool of aggressors and operational means to carry out its wishes kick the ICC to the sideline, it’s left with a significantly smaller pool of criminals to prosecute and an even smaller willing force to do so.

Unfortunately, this force isn’t likely to grow anytime soon. A United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) study found that more often than not, politically corrupt governments work in close cohorts with the criminals they would have to prosecute under ICC orders. This bars the court from pursuing the world's most dangerous criminals, a story Venezuela knows all too well. In 2022, the state-enabled illicit drug trade totaled over $5.1 billion, comprising over 15% of the nation's economy. Unfortunately, from Venezuela to Rwanda, governments are unlikely to sell out, let alone voluntarily capture their economic partners.

But there is no case more prevalent than the long-standing ICC arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin—the head of state who would, under the court, be responsible for obtaining and handing in warranted individuals, or in this case… himself.

The International Criminal Court has structurally barred itself from functioning. But even if they hadn’t, the limits of their jurisdiction only make them more susceptible to internal corruption—exactly what they’re supposed to prevent.

Corruption

Since the ICC functions at the mercy of its members, investigative targets far too often pressure member states into concessions within the court. Resultantly, organizations like Amnesty International have deemed the ICC incredibly biased, exemplified by an outstanding 84% of their cases focusing on the African continent.

Yet, this isn’t the only form of corruption the court is subject to. Under the Rome Statute and basic international law, the ICC shouldn’t be permitted or attempt to operate in non-member nations. Regardless, the court has issued a series of arrest warrants for not just individuals but global leaders it has no jurisdiction over.

In November of 2024, for instance, the ICC pursued the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and al-Qassam brigades commander Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, going as far as to assert that “it continues to investigate the crimes in the ongoing conflict and envisions that further applications for warrants of arrest will be submitted.”

It is this investigation that highlights perhaps the most critical flaw of the ICC: the US wants nothing to do with it.

American Abstinence

The United States has never considered membership in and rarely complies with the ICC, especially under the leadership of President Donald Trump, who has campaigned against the court dating back to 2016 and warned just this year that their investigation into Israeli war crimes “set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel.”

It’s one thing to function without the US, but another entirely to function against it. Before August 2025, the Trump Administration had sanctioned both the ICC’s former chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, and four other tribunal judges.

Now, the US has released an even larger packet of sanctions targeting ICC judges Kimberly Prost and Nicolas Guillou and prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang. In the words of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, “These individuals are foreign persons who directly engaged in efforts by the international criminal court to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of either nation.”

Without the US, the ICC becomes an anomaly amidst a pool of international organizations like NATO and the UN. Unfortunately, it will take a lot to overcome this obstacle, making it all the more likely that the ICC will become obsolete in global peacekeeping measures.

Extemp Analysis by Sophia Amundgaard

Question: Has the international criminal court made meaningful progress in protecting human rights?

AGD: When I answered this question at NSDA 2025, my octa was framed under human rights, a theme that will generally encompass questions about the ICC. Because of this, I can’t recommend incorporating a humorous AGD more as the round will likely be composed of impact intros which judges tend to engage less with (unless done well). An easy grab includes the warrant for Putin’s arrest needing to be carried out by Putin—this one is also great because it's about as topic specific as you can get.

Background: We need to establish a number of things in our context. First among these is the function and origin of the ICC as most judges aren’t going to be familiar with the court—this can be established rather simply by incorporating a series of clauses. For your first source, I’d recommend citing the CFR ICC breakdown. Additionally, we need to understand what the court has done because (if you take my advice) the majority of this speech will be about its failures, so you must outline the basics like those posited in the intro paragraphs of this article (ex. the ICC has convicted 11 individuals, the court has received $2bn in funding since 2002, etc.). Ideally, you’d use a more “obscure” and/or topical second source here to build credibility, especially because they’re rather easy to find.

SOS: In our significance we want to explain why this question needs to be asked today. I kind of outline this in the article as well—85% of the world lives under politically corrupt political systems. If you implement a two tiered statement of significance, you can take it a step farther and find statistics to numericize the impact of corruption on those civilians.

Answer: Unlike in my other extemp analysises, there really is only one objectivley correct way to answer this question, ⭐️ No—it structurally impedes itself from doing so.

Points: Since I’ve outlined and delivered this speech prior, I’ll cite the three points I used below. The reason these work is two fold; they both establish a flow that builds upon each other and cite unique evidence that ties in case studies from real ICC investigations. For instance, in point two I cited how Netanyahu was unlikely to turn himself in to the ICJ (lol).

Lack of jurisdiction
Limited capacity for enforcement
Susceptibility to corruption

An alternative to the second or third point is the international illegality of the ICC’s function, but that can get pretty muddy if you don’t entirely understand the court.

Substructure-wise, this is what I recommend:

A: Something the ICC would need to function

B: How the way it’s structured bars it from fulfilling that need

C: The impact of that failure on its ability to peacekeep (you can usually cite a case study)

Reminders: When you’re answering this question, you aren’t just proving that the ICC has or hasn’t made progress, you’re also explaining why your umbrella answer is the reason for the prior—so remember to incorporate a systemic issue in each B subpoint if you adopt my answer.

This speech can run the risk of being incredibly repetitive. Make sure, by using substructure to your advantage, that you aren’t repeating any logic or information. There are many reasons that ICC doesn’t function and although they all build upon each other, they are unique and different. This will ultimately come down to having a concrete outline. This is also super nitpicky, but remember the question is specifically asking you to analyze the progress being made by the ICC. So at some point, you will want to make parallels to the past.

To reiterate, use humor to your advantage. This speech is unique in that it encompasses human rights, but doesn’t hone in on a specific event, leaving the Plainfield wide open for jokes. Especially in out rounds at large tournaments, this will also help you stand out—being the most entertaining in a human rights round (without being offensive) will carry you far.