GLOSSARY
The International Criminal Court: what it is, how it works, and why a warrant isn’t enough
Updated July 22, 2026
When an article on this site mentions “the ICC” or “an International Criminal Court warrant,” it assumes the reader already knows what that means. Often they don’t — and it’s a less intuitive court than it seems: it has real power, but of a different kind than a domestic court, and the difference matters for understanding every article that cites it.
What it is
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent tribunal based in The Hague, established by the Rome Statute in 1998 and operational since 2002. It tries individuals — never states — for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. It does not replace national courts: it steps in only when a state is unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute its own nationals (the principle of complementarity).
How it works
An investigation can begin at the request of a state party, through a referral by the UN Security Council, or on the Prosecutor’s own initiative with judges’ authorization. The Court can proceed if the accused is a national of a state party, or if the crime took place on the territory of a state party — regardless of the accused’s nationality. The Security Council can also extend jurisdiction to situations involving non-member states, as it did for Darfur (2005) and Libya (2011).
The structural limit
The ICC has no police force of its own: it depends entirely on states’ cooperation to carry out an arrest. This is the central issue in many stories on this site, from the Mamdani-Netanyahu case to warrants against other heads of state that have never been enforced.
Who joins, and who doesn’t
125 states are parties, the latest being Ukraine in January 2025. Among those that remain outside: the United States, Russia, China, India, and Israel — for different but often overlapping reasons: fear that their own officials or military personnel could be prosecuted, disputes over jurisdiction on specific territories, and principled opposition to ceding judicial sovereignty.
Even membership doesn’t guarantee enforcement
In 2024, Mongolia, a state party, hosted Putin without arresting him, citing its energy dependence on Russia. In 2025, Hungary, also a state party, hosted Netanyahu without arresting him — a choice that led it to formally withdraw from the Rome Statute in 2026 rather than face the issue again. Membership raises the political cost of ignoring a warrant; it doesn’t eliminate it.
Wanted doesn’t mean convicted
The ICC does not try defendants in absentia: without the accused present, there is no trial, so no one is ever “convicted and still at large” — those who aren’t arrested remain, forever, only accused. The best-known pending warrants include those against Vladimir Putin (since 2023), Omar al-Bashir (since 2009, the oldest high-profile case), and Joseph Kony (since 2005, the oldest warrant of all). The complete, updated list of unenforced warrants is maintained by the ICC itself, and changes with every arrest, death, or withdrawn warrant — we point to the primary source here rather than reproduce a copy that would go stale.
Sources: Rome Statute · CFR · ICC-ASP · ICC case list · Al Jazeera · RFE/RL