Scales of Justice on a Battlefield: A Surreal Depiction of International Law at War

The ICC's Intervention: Reshaping Global Power Dynamics?

Theo Raines in Global Affairs June 2025 • 4 min read.

"A Deep Dive into How Criminalizing Aggression Could Redefine International Law and Humanitarian Efforts."

For decades, the concept of international criminal prosecutions for acts of aggression seemed like a distant dream. Now, with the activation of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction over such crimes, the reality is quickly setting in. This shift promises to reshape the landscape of international law, particularly concerning the use of force between nations.

The ICC's ability to prosecute those who initiate aggressive military actions is seen by some as a crucial step towards global justice and accountability. By holding individuals responsible for acts of aggression, the court aims to deter future conflicts and promote a more peaceful world order.

However, this new power also raises complex questions and concerns. One of the most pressing is how the ICC's involvement will affect the delicate balance between national sovereignty and international intervention, especially in cases where humanitarian crises demand a response. Will the threat of prosecution discourage legitimate efforts to protect vulnerable populations, or will it lead to a more cautious and considered approach to the use of military force?

The ICC as a Global Gatekeeper

Scales of Justice on a Battlefield: A Surreal Depiction of International Law at War

The way the ICC Prosecutor and Pre-Trial Chambers handle cases of aggression will have major implications for how the world interprets and follows the laws governing the use of force. This article will discuss how the ICC's power to address the crime of aggression might impact decisions about intervening for humanitarian reasons and explore how it could change international legal rules about using force.

Some experts worry that the ICC's involvement could make political and military leaders think twice before using military force, even when it's needed to stop terrible human rights violations. They fear the risk of being prosecuted might lead countries to stand by and watch crises unfold, creating a 'chilling effect' on humanitarian interventions.

The 'chilling effect': The concern that leaders may hesitate to intervene in humanitarian crises due to fear of prosecution.
Defining aggression: The complexities of determining what constitutes a 'manifest violation' of the UN Charter.
The 'character' element: How the ICC interprets the 'character, gravity, and scale' of an act of aggression.
Impact on state sovereignty: Balancing the ICC's jurisdiction with the rights and responsibilities of individual nations.

Despite these concerns, the Rome Statute includes several safeguards to protect leaders who initiate interventions for genuine humanitarian purposes. To start with, it must be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith, and thus an act undertaken in connection with an effort to prevent the commission of any of the crimes contained in Articles 6, 7 or 8 of the Statute would not constitute an act of aggression. Furthermore, the ICC will only address cases that are serious violations of UN Charter. The question is, will that include interventions made to address crisis.

The Future of Intervention

The activation of the ICC's power is a turning point. Whether it becomes a force for global justice, or creates new challenges, depends on how the court interprets its role. As the ICC navigates these complex issues, its decisions will not only shape the future of international law, but also the lives of countless people around the world.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1093/ejil/chy053, Alternate LINK

Title: Criminalizing Aggression: How The Future Of The Law On The Use Of Force Rests In The Hands Of The Icc

Subject: Law

Journal: European Journal of International Law

Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)

Authors: Tom Ruys

Published: 2018-08-01

Everything You Need To Know

How might the International Criminal Court's (ICC) power to prosecute aggression reshape international law?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) now has the jurisdiction to prosecute acts of aggression, which could significantly change how nations use force. This power allows the ICC to hold individuals accountable for initiating aggressive military actions, potentially deterring future conflicts and promoting a more peaceful world order.

What is meant by the 'chilling effect' in the context of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and humanitarian interventions?

The concern that the ICC's involvement might deter necessary interventions is known as the 'chilling effect.' Leaders may hesitate to use military force, even in situations involving severe human rights violations, for fear of prosecution. This reluctance could lead to inaction during critical humanitarian crises.

How does the International Criminal Court (ICC) assess the 'character, gravity, and scale' of an act of aggression?

The ICC determines the seriousness of an act of aggression by assessing its 'character, gravity, and scale.' These factors help the court distinguish between minor conflicts and significant violations of international law. Understanding these elements is crucial for determining whether the ICC will intervene.

What is the impact on state sovereignty, now that the International Criminal Court (ICC) can prosecute aggression?

The activation of the ICC's power to prosecute aggression raises complex questions about state sovereignty. While the ICC aims to hold individuals accountable, it also respects the rights and responsibilities of individual nations. Balancing the ICC's jurisdiction with national sovereignty is essential for maintaining international order and preventing abuse of power.

Are there any safeguards within the Rome Statute to protect leaders initiating interventions for genuine humanitarian purposes from being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC)?

The Rome Statute includes safeguards to protect leaders who intervene for genuine humanitarian purposes. Interventions aimed at preventing crimes outlined in Articles 6, 7, or 8 of the Statute are unlikely to be considered acts of aggression, provided they are conducted in good faith. Additionally, the ICC focuses on cases that represent serious violations of the UN Charter, further ensuring that legitimate humanitarian efforts are not unduly restricted.