A Practical and Critical Assessment of the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court in the Field of Individual Criminal Responsibility

Abstract

Individual criminal responsibility, as one of the fundamental pillars of international criminal law, occupies a central position in the work of the International Criminal Court. This article aims to provide a practical and critical assessment of the Court’s jurisprudence in the field of individual criminal responsibility by examining the status of this concept within the Court’s criminal policy and the challenges confronting it. The study was conducted using an analytical-descriptive method and drawing on library sources, judicial decisions, and the official documents of the Court. The findings indicate that, through a systematic interpretation of Article 25 of the Rome Statute—particularly through the theory of “control over the crime” in the Lubanga case and the theory of “organizational control” in the Katanga case—the Court has been able to consolidate an advanced framework of individual criminal responsibility in customary international law. Nevertheless, the Court’s case law in landmark cases such as Ntaganda, Ongwen, and Gbagbo, while successful in prosecuting high-ranking leaders and developing concepts such as “intergenerational harm,” has faced significant challenges in proving group intent, distinguishing between the sharing of intent and knowledge of the group’s intent, protecting witnesses, and interacting with states. The non-cooperation of states in arresting fugitives, reflected in 31 unexecuted arrest warrants, dependence on voluntary contributions for the implementation of reparations, and political pressures are among the most important obstacles to the Court’s effectiveness. By proposing reforms at legislative, structural, procedural, and international-cooperation levels, the article emphasizes the need to amend Article 25 in order to clarify the criteria distinguishing direct perpetration from participation, to reform Regulation 55 to prevent changes in the form of responsibility at the final stages of proceedings, to establish a state-support fund with mandatory resources for the implementation of reparations, and to strengthen cooperation with regional organizations.