Exploring The Efficacy Of The ‘Principle Of Complementarity’ In The International Criminal Court

Abstract

The International Criminal Court (ICC) stands as an inter-governmental body and international tribunal headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands. Its mandate includes the investigation and, where deemed necessary, the prosecution of persons charged with the gravest offenses of international concern, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the act of aggression. The concept of complementarity is fundamental to the functioning of the ICC. This concept stipulates that the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only when a country is unable or unwilling to conduct genuine proceedings against the accused crimes. This framework emphasizes that the primary duty to enforce international law rests with individual states, with the ICC acting as a backup mechanism should national legal systems fail. While the principle of complementarity has sparked debate, with some critics contending it gives states too much power to shield their nationals from ICC prosecution. However, proponents of the principle argue that it is essential to ensure that the ICC does not undermine national justice systems. In recent years, the ICC has been increasingly active, opening investigations into a number of situations around the world. However, the Court has also faced challenges, including a lack of cooperation from some states and a shortage of resources.  This paper intends to explore the unique feature of the ‘Principle of Complementarity’ in ICC. The aim is to find out the need to have such principle and how it adds to the cases of war crimes in the current scenario.