The Future of International Courts: Are They Effective?

The Future of International Courts: A Global Analysis of Effectiveness - By Stephanie.

This research paper examines the effectiveness of international courts through a comparative and developmental lens. Focusing on the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and key regional human rights bodies, this paper interrogates how geography, sovereignty, geopolitical power, and institutional design shape the impact and the limitations of international adjudication. Through case studies from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and North America, and by drawing a systematic comparison between the Global North and the Global South, this paper argues that international courts are selectively effective: capable of landmark legal developments and victim-centred justice in some contexts, but fundamentally constrained by their lack of enforcement power and their inability to hold the world's most powerful states accountable. The paper concludes by proposing structural reforms necessary to strengthen the universality and credibility of international courts in the twenty-first century.

1. Introduction

The premise of international courts is built on one of the most ambitious aspirations of modern civilization that no state or individual, however powerful, should be beyond the reach of the law. International courts such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), established in 1945 as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court (ICC), created by the Rome Statute in 2002, were designed to fill the accountability vacuum left by the limitations of domestic legal systems. They represent the institutionalisation of the post-World War II conviction that international law must govern relations between states and that individuals who commit atrocity crimes must face justice regardless of their official position.

And yet, more than two decades into the twenty-first century, these courts face an existential credibility crisis. The ICC has delivered only 13 convictions since its founding, despite opening investigations into situations in over 16 countries (allAfrica, 2025). Powerful states, including the United States, China, Russia, and India, remain outside or openly hostile to the ICC's jurisdiction. The world's most high-profile arrest warrants, including those against former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and Russian President Vladimir Putin, have yielded no arrests. And in February 2025, the United States government sanctioned ICC officials by executive order, a dramatic escalation that has placed the court's future under serious threat.

This paper does not ask whether international courts have been perfect. Manifestly, they have not. Instead, it asks a harder and more important question: under what conditions, for whom, and in what ways are these courts effective? The answer varies significantly depending on the continent examined, the developmental status of the states involved, and the political weight of the actors targeted. By examining these variables in turn, this paper aims to develop a nuanced, evidence-based account of both the achievements and the structural failures of the international justice system.

2. Defining Effectiveness in International Courts

Before assessing effectiveness, it is necessary to establish what effectiveness means in this context. International legal scholars have identified several overlapping dimensions. Posner and Yoo (2005) distinguish between whether a court successfully resolves the specific dispute before it (direct effectiveness) and whether its rulings influence broader state behaviour over time (systemic effectiveness). Simmons (2009) adds a third dimension: the extent to which international rulings catalyse domestic legal reform, particularly in states with weak internal institutions.

For the purposes of this paper, effectiveness is measured across four criteria:

 (1) Legal jurisdiction and procedural reach determine whether the court can hear the cases it was designed to hear. 

(2) Compliance and enforcement: Do states follow the court's orders and rulings 

(3) deterrence, does the court's existence reduce the incidence of the crimes it was designed to punish? 

(4) norm development, does the court contribute to the evolution of international law in ways that influence domestic systems.

Applying these four criteria reveals that different courts and different regions score very differently on each dimension.

3. Africa: Selective Justice and the Sovereignty Backlash

3.1 The ICC's Disproportionate Focus on Africa

Africa's relationship with the ICC is the most fraught of any continent. Since the court's establishment in 2002, the overwhelming majority of its investigations have involved African situations. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic, Darfur, Kenya, Libya, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, and others (Human Rights Watch, 2025). Critics, including the African Union (AU), have argued that this geographic concentration reflects a structural bias that amounts to what they term selective justice or neo-colonial interference (Murithi, 2012).

The criticism is not without empirical foundation. While the ICC was prosecuting African militia leaders and former heads of state, comparable or worse atrocities committed by nationals of non-member states, particularly the United States, in Afghanistan and Iraq faced no ICC scrutiny (Yale Journal of International Affairs, 2024). When the court did open a preliminary investigation into potential war crimes in Afghanistan, the Trump administration, in its first term, sanctioned the then-Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and her successor later narrowed the Afghanistan investigation's focus away from American personnel (Brookings, 2025). This pattern of selective enforcement has deeply damaged the court's legitimacy in African eyes.

3.2 Withdrawal and Regional Alternatives

The most dramatic manifestation of African disillusionment was the wave of withdrawals from the Rome Statute. Burundi formalised its withdrawal in 2017. More recently, on 22 September 2025, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, the three military-led states forming the Alliance of Sahel States, announced their simultaneous withdrawal from the ICC, describing the court as a tool of neocolonial repression and accusing it of selective justice and double standards (allAfrica, 2025). These states have advanced plans to establish a regional alternative, the Sahelian Criminal and Human Rights Court (CPS-DH), to create a justice mechanism they perceive as more sovereign and culturally legitimate.

These withdrawals illustrate a critical tension at the heart of international justice. When states perceive that the legal playing field is not level, they exit the system entirely. However, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, based in Arusha, Tanzania, represents an important counterpoint to a regional institution created by African states, governed by African legal traditions, and commanding considerably greater local legitimacy. Its work suggests that international law may be more durable and effective when rooted in regional ownership rather than externally imposed norms (Murithi, 2012).

3.3 Case Study. The Al-Bashir Warrant and Its Aftermath

In 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Darfur, making him the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the court. Yet Al-Bashir remained free and continued to govern Sudan for nearly a decade, travelling freely to AU member states that refused to arrest him. This case crystallised the court's central enforcement problem; without a police force, the ICC depends entirely on state cooperation to execute its warrants, and states will not cooperate when political interests counsel otherwise.

Al-Bashir was eventually deposed and detained by Sudan's own military in 2019, not by any international mechanism. His case underscores that political transitions at the domestic level, not ICC pressure alone, have often been the proximate cause of accountability (Schabas, 2017). While this demonstrates the ICC's limited direct enforcement power, it also shows that the court can contribute to a broader normative environment in which accountability is at least rhetorically expected.

4. Latin America: Regional Justice and the Court of Last Resort

4.1 The Inter-American System

In contrast to the institutional turbulence characterising the ICC's relationship with Africa, Latin America's experience with international courts has been considerably more productive. The Inter-American human rights system, comprising the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), both headquartered in San José, Costa Rica, has developed one of the most sophisticated and victim-centred bodies of human rights jurisprudence in the world (Pasqualucci, 2012).

Founded in 1979, the IACtHR exercises jurisdiction over approximately 20 of the 35 Organisation of American States member states that have formally accepted its compulsory jurisdiction. Unlike the ICC, the IACtHR operates in a regional context defined by a degree of legal and cultural coherence, and its decisions have been implemented  albeit imperfectly by states that have often used the court as political cover to justify difficult domestic reforms that might otherwise face internal resistance (Simmons, 2009).

4.2 Case Study: Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988)

The landmark case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988) remains foundational to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system. The court held the Honduran state directly responsible for the enforced disappearance of a student activist, Manfredo Velásquez, establishing for the first time that a state's failure to prevent, investigate, and punish human rights violations constituted a breach of its international legal obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights. The ruling required Honduras to pay reparations to the victim's family and catalysed a broader regional movement toward truth commissions, reparations programmes, and the investigation of military-era atrocities (Pasqualucci, 2012).

This case illustrates what Simmons (2009) terms the 'mobilisation' effect of international courts; rulings do not merely resolve a single dispute but empower civil society, victims' groups, and reform-minded domestic actors to push for systemic change. In the decades that followed, Latin American states transitioning from military dictatorship used IACtHR rulings as binding legal foundations to prosecute their own security forces,  a pattern replicated in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and El Salvador.

4.3 Recent Developments: Climate and Human Rights

The IACtHR has most recently demonstrated its capacity for progressive legal development by entering the terrain of climate justice. In July 2025, following a 2023 request by Chile and Colombia, the court issued a landmark advisory opinion declaring a clear link between the climate emergency and human rights obligations under the American Convention a 234-page opinion that recognised, for the first time in IACtHR history, that states and corporations have binding obligations to mitigate global warming to protect human rights (ClientEarth, 2025). This development, read alongside the International Court of Justice's own climate advisory opinion of the same month, suggests that international courts are evolving to address twenty-first century threats that their founding instruments never expressly contemplated.

Crucially, the IACtHR also recorded significant institutional activity in 2024, issuing a record 121 merits reports on severe human rights violations and achieving progress on 170 of its outstanding recommendations (OAS, 2025). The contrast with the ICC's enforcement record is instructive: regional courts operating within a shared legal and cultural context tend to achieve higher rates of compliance and implementation.

5. Asia: Sovereignty, Non-Interference, and the Power Gap

5.1 Structural Non-Engagement with International Courts

Asia presents the most notable example of international court avoidance. The continent has the lowest rate of ICC membership of any region in the world. Major powers, including China, India, Indonesia, and Singapore, are not parties to the Rome Statute, and none of Asia's great powers has expressed any willingness to join (Guzman, 2016). The prevailing normative framework in much of Asia prioritises state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs, a doctrine most formally institutionalised through the ASEAN Way in Southeast Asia but broadly shared across the continent.

This non-engagement is not merely ideological. It reflects a rational calculation by regional powers that international courts, particularly the ICC, function more as mechanisms of external scrutiny than as tools of justice, and that accession carries asymmetric risks. For states with ongoing domestic conflicts, territorial disputes, or contentious minority politics, ICC membership creates exposure with no obvious benefit (Bassiouni, 2011).

5.2 Case Study: Philippines v. China in the South China Sea (2016)

Perhaps no case in the recent history of international courts illustrates the limits of judicial authority more clearly than the 2016 South China Sea arbitration. The Philippines, invoking Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), submitted a case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration challenging the legal basis for China's expansive maritime claims. The tribunal, in a comprehensive 479-page award, ruled overwhelmingly in the Philippines' favour, finding that China's nine-dash line had no basis under international law and that China had interfered with Philippine fishing rights and environmental obligations in the contested waters.

China's response was categorical and unequivocal: it refused to participate in the arbitration, declared the tribunal to have no jurisdiction, and, after the award was issued, dismissed it as null and void and without binding force (Guzman, 2016). The Philippines, acutely aware of its asymmetric dependence on China economically and geographically, subsequently downplayed the ruling in diplomatic channels rather than demanding enforcement. The award has never been implemented in any meaningful way.

This case exposes the structural logic that undermines all international courts when powerful states are the respondents. As Guzman (2016) observes, international courts lack teeth; they have no police force, no independent enforcement mechanism, and no coercive authority over states that choose to defect. Their authority rests on the voluntary compliance of the states appearing before them, and powerful states can calculate that the reputational cost of defiance is lower than the political cost of compliance.

5.3 Emerging Exceptions. The Role of the ICJ in Inter-State Disputes

Despite the general pattern of avoidance, Asia is not uniformly hostile to international adjudication. The ICJ has heard several cases involving Asian states, particularly in the area of maritime delimitation and territorial sovereignty. The court's rulings in these cases have generally been accepted, suggesting that Asian states do engage with international courts when the subject matter is sufficiently technical, the outcome sufficiently uncertain, and the reputational stakes sufficiently high to make compliance rational. This indicates that the effectiveness of international courts in Asia is contingent on the nature of the dispute rather than representing a categorical rejection of international adjudication.

6. North America: Exceptionalism and the Architecture of Non-Accountability

6.1 The United States and the ICC

The United States occupies a uniquely contradictory position in the international justice system. As one of the principal architects of the post-World War II legal order, including the Nuremberg Tribunal and the United Nations, the United  States has historically promoted international accountability in principle. In practice, however, it has consistently refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the very institutions it helped create, particularly when those institutions might scrutinise American conduct (Posner & Yoo, 2005).

The United States signed the Rome Statute in December 2000 but has never ratified it. In 2002, the Bush administration 'unsigned' the treaty by formally notifying the United Nations that the United States did not intend to be bound by it. In the same year, Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which prohibits US cooperation with the ICC, bars military assistance to ICC member states that refuse to grant immunity to US personnel, and in a provision that attracted the nickname the Hague Invasion Act authorises the use of military force to retrieve any US national detained by the court (ASIL, 2025).

6.2 Executive Order 14203 and the Escalation of US Hostility

The most dramatic recent development in the United States' relationship with the ICC occurred on 6 February 2025, when President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14203, 'Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court. The order was issued in direct response to the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the conflict in Gaza. The executive order imposed asset freezes, visa restrictions, and financial penalties on ICC officials, their family members, and any person found to have assisted ICC investigations targeting the United States or its allies (The White House, 2025).

The consequences have been immediate and deeply damaging to individual court personnel. Sanctioned ICC judges have reported having their credit cards cancelled, being unable to make international bank transfers, having their Amazon accounts closed, and, in one case, having a colleague's daughter's US visa revoked (Wikipedia, Executive Order 14203, 2025). The International Bar Association condemned the sanctions as 'politically motivated interference with the Court's independence' (ibid). By August 2025, the Secretary of State had placed multiple ICC judges on the sanctions list, with the designation process ongoing.

In December 2024, 93 of the ICC's 125 member states reaffirmed their 'unwavering support' for the court's mandate (ASIL, 2025). This display of solidarity is significant, but it does not resolve the underlying structural problem: when the world's most militarily and economically powerful state actively sanctions a court's officials, the practical capacity of that court to function is materially impaired, whatever the rhetorical support of the international community.

6.3 The Two-Tier System

The United States' conduct exemplifies a broader structural problem. The emergence of a two-tier international legal system in which accountability under international law operates differently depending on whether the state in question is a major power. As Posner and Yoo (2005) observed, international courts are most effective as forums for resolving disputes between states that are roughly equal in power and have a shared interest in compliance. When a powerful state is the respondent or when a powerful state shields another state from the court's jurisdiction, the courts' remedies become largely symbolic.

This two-tier dynamic is not unique to the United States. Russia's defiance of the ICC warrant issued against President Putin in March 2023 on charges of forcibly deporting Ukrainian children, a warrant that was widely celebrated as a landmark development, illustrates the same logic. Putin's arrest warrant prevented him from attending the BRICS Summit in South Africa in 2023, since South Africa, as an ICC member state, was legally obligated to arrest him. In practice, the warrant has had no material accountability consequence (Yale Journal of International Affairs, 2024). Similarly, China's dismissal of the South China Sea arbitration award has never attracted any formal sanction from the international community.

7. The Effectiveness Gap. Developing Nations vs. Developed Nations

A systematic comparison of the experiences documented above reveals a consistent pattern. For developing and underdeveloped nations, international courts function primarily as external oversight mechanisms through which victims can appeal when their own domestic institutions fail. The IACtHR exemplifies this model. It has been most effective precisely in contexts where domestic courts are weak, corrupt, or complicit in state violations. As Simmons (2009) demonstrates, international rulings serve as a catalyst for domestic mobilisation, empowering civil society actors and reform coalitions who use international legal obligations to press for institutional change.

For developed nations and major powers, by contrast, international courts operate, if at all, as largely voluntary forums whose authority is accepted or rejected on strategic grounds. The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and India have all at various points declined to submit to, undermine, or actively sanction international court proceedings. The result is an effectiveness gap that maps closely onto the geopolitical divide between the Global North and the Global South.

This gap has a further dimension. The ICC has achieved only 13 convictions since 2002, and its case load has been overwhelmingly focused on African states, despite serious crimes occurring globally in Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar, Gaza, Ukraine, and elsewhere (allAfrica, 2025; Istanbul Centre for International Law, 2024). The court's critics from the Global South argue with considerable force that the pattern of prosecution reflects not just the jurisdictional architecture of the Rome Statute but a deeper political bias in which international courts serve as instruments of discipline over weaker states while leaving powerful states and their allies effectively immune.

The ICJ's record is more mixed. As a court of inter-state disputes, it does handle cases involving powerful states, and its rulings are generally implemented to a greater degree than those of the ICC. South Africa's case against Israel on allegations of genocide under the Genocide Convention, filed in December 2023, is a significant test of the ICJ's capacity to engage with ongoing atrocities rather than historical ones. The court issued provisional measures requiring Israel to take all steps to prevent genocidal acts in January 2024, and the case remains pending its long-term significance for the law of genocide, and the court's effectiveness will depend on ultimate compliance.

8. Toward a More Effective International Justice System. Structural Reforms

The analysis above suggests that the weaknesses of international courts are not primarily intellectual or legal. The jurisprudence produced by these courts is often sophisticated, principled, and progressive. The weaknesses are structural and political. Accordingly, meaningful reforms must address those structural and political conditions.

First, enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened. The ICC's dependence on state cooperation for arrests renders it incapable of proceeding against individuals from non-cooperating states. Various proposals have been made: enhancing the UN Security Council's role in enforcement (while acknowledging that the veto power of permanent members creates its own distortions), establishing a dedicated enforcement unit within the UN system, or creating automatic financial penalties for states that fail to cooperate with arrest warrants. None of these proposals is without difficulty, but the current situation in which warrants are issued and ignored indefinitely is clearly unsustainable.

Second, the court must address the perception of selective justice. As the Yale Journal of International Affairs (2024) has argued, the tension between the ICC's stated mission of universal accountability and its practical reliance on the political goals of powerful states has created a 'legitimacy trap' that undermines the court's authority in precisely those regions where it most needs support. The ICC's recent issuance of arrest warrants against Putin and Netanyahu, whatever their enforcement limitations, represents a meaningful attempt to demonstrate impartiality. These efforts must be sustained and accompanied by genuine procedural reforms to ensure that investigations are not deflected by political pressure.

Third, regional courts should be invested in as complementary rather than competing institutions. The relative success of the IACtHR in Latin America and the ongoing development of African regional courts reflect a genuine insight: international justice may be more durable when it is regionally anchored, culturally embedded, and perceived as locally legitimate. The international community should support the capacity-building of regional courts rather than treating the ICC as the sole legitimate mechanism for accountability.

Fourth, major powers must be brought within or at least closer to the international justice system. This will require diplomatic creativity. Bilateral immunity agreements, differentiated compliance mechanisms, or the development of new hybrid tribunals for specific situations (as was done for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone) may offer pathways toward greater engagement from states unwilling to accept the ICC's general jurisdiction.

9. Conclusion

International courts are neither irrelevant nor omnipotent. They occupy a contested middle ground: capable of producing landmark legal developments, catalysing domestic reform, and articulating universal norms of accountability, but fundamentally limited by the political architecture of a world that remains organised around sovereign states with vastly unequal power. Their effectiveness is real but unevenly distributed, most palpable in the Global South contexts where domestic institutions are weakest, and most attenuated in the great power politics that ultimately determine whether any international ruling is enforced.

The ICC's record thirteen convictions, multiple defied warrants, and an escalating confrontation with the United States government make clear that the court has not yet fulfilled its founding promise. But the Inter-American Court's progressive jurisprudence on reparations, enforced disappearances, and now climate change demonstrates that international courts, under the right institutional conditions, can be powerful engines of legal development and human rights protection.

The future of international courts depends not on the courts themselves but on the political will of the states that created them. If powerful states continue to treat international law as an instrument applicable to others but not to themselves, the two-tier system will deepen, and the legitimacy of the entire international justice project will erode. If, by contrast, states, including major powers, invest in reforming and strengthening the institutions they created, international courts could yet become what their founders envisioned: a universal legal order in which a war crime carries the same legal weight regardless of the nationality, power, or wealth of the perpetrator.

That outcome is not inevitable. But it remains, as it has always been, the only outcome worth striving for.

References

• allAfrica (2025). 'The ICC's Bias and Failures: Time for Africa to Move On?' Retrieved from https://allafrica.com/stories/202602050585.html
• American Society of International Law (ASIL) (2025). 'Trump Signs an Executive Order Sanctioning ICC.' International Law in Brief. Retrieved from https://www.asil.org
• Bassiouni, M. C. (2011). The Pursuit of International Criminal Justice: A World Study on Conflicts, Victims, and Post-Conflict Justice. Intersentia.
• Brookings Institution (2025). 'ICC Sanctions Will Hurt, Not Help, the United States.' Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu
• ClientEarth (2025). 'What is the Chile and Colombia Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) Initiative?' Retrieved from https://www.clientearth.org
• Guzman, A. T. (2016). 'The South China Sea Arbitration and the Future of the Law of the Sea.' American Journal of International Law, 110(2), 305–324.
• Human Rights Watch (2025). 'US: Trump Authorises International Criminal Court Sanctions.' Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org
• Istanbul Centre for International Law (2024). 'The International Criminal Court: Effectiveness vs Criticisms.' Retrieved from https://icil.org.tr
• Murithi, T. (2012). 'Africa and the International Criminal Court: On a Collision Course.' Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10(5), 1267–1284.
• Organisation of American States (OAS) (2025). 'IACHR Annual Report Highlights Regional Human Rights Trends.' Press Release. Retrieved from https://www.oas.org
• Pasqualucci, J. M. (2012). The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Policy Centre for the New South (2025). 'The Role of the International Criminal Court in Preventing Crimes.' Policy Brief 26-25. Retrieved from https://www.policycenter.ma
• Posner, E. A., & Yoo, J. (2005). 'Judicial Independence in International Tribunals.' California Law Review, 93(1), 1–74.
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2187, p. 3.
• Sands, P. (2016). East West Street: On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
• Schabas, W. A. (2017). An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilising for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge University Press.
• The White House (2025). 'Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court' (Executive Order 14203, February 6, 2025). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov
• Wikipedia (2025). 'Executive Order 14203.' Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14203
• Yale Journal of International Affairs (2024). 'The Legitimacy Trap: Balancing Enforcement and International Cooperation Within the International Criminal Court.' Retrieved from https://www.yalejournal.org