THE HAGUE, Netherlands – Recently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) almost managed to detain a Libyan warlord, yet Italy, a member state, chose instead to send him back home. This decision means that for the first time since it opened its doors in 2006, the ICC has no imminent trials scheduled. The court now faces increasing pressure from various fronts, particularly from U.S. President Donald Trump.
Despite having a budget of $200 million annually and a team of determined legal experts, the ICC finds itself lacking any active cases, even as it eyes high-profile figures like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “The absence of ongoing trials tarnishes the court’s image,” remarked Danya Chaikel, a representative of the International Federation for Human Rights. “The ICC’s core mission is to investigate and prosecute those most responsible for serious international offenses.”
Historically, the ICC has been the only permanent global court focused on holding individuals accountable for the gravest crimes against humanity; however, it has not experienced this level of inactivity in nearly twenty years. The court’s inaugural conviction was that of Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga, who was sentenced to a fourteen-year prison term in 2012 for recruiting child soldiers. Since then, the ICC has been able to maintain a steady flow of cases, leading to 11 convictions so far, with three verdicts still pending. Additionally, the court has issued 32 arrest warrants, targeting individuals from high-profile leaders to those accused of torture.
The ICC continues to confront numerous challenges, particularly from the political climate in the U.S. Shortly after taking office, Trump reinstated sanctions against court personnel, and while a bill proposing broader sanctions has advanced in the House, it remains stuck in the Senate amid Democratic opposition. Furthermore, the previous chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, confronted significant challenges during her tenure, including experiencing cybersecurity issues and threats. Recently, the current prosecutor, Karim Khan, has pursued an unprecedented amount of 24 arrest warrants, yet the likelihood of apprehending suspects such as Putin remains slim, given that neither Russia nor Israel recognizes the court’s authority.
Mark Kersten, an expert in international criminal justice, suggests that the ICC has not prioritized arresting those who are more likely to be captured. Ultimately, the responsibility for capturing suspects lies with the member states, according to Chaikel, whose organization supports nearly 200 human rights groups globally. However, political motivations deter many countries from executing arrests. For instance, Mongolia publicly welcomed Putin during a state visit, openly disregarding obligations to detain him, similar to actions by South Africa and Kenya, who both ignored an ICC warrant against former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir. Despite being deposed in a coup back in 2019, Sudan has yet to surrender him to the ICC.
As for the Libyan warlord Ossama Anjiem, Italy asserts that procedural errors led to the dismissal of the ICC warrant, and he was subsequently released under the orders of a local court. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had stated, “It was not a government choice.” However, given Italy’s founding role in the ICC, there may have been underlying motives to avoid executing the warrant, particularly because Italy relies on the Tripoli regime to manage immigration and prevent mass departures of migrants traveling via smuggler boats. A trial at the ICC for Anjiem could jeopardize Italy’s diplomatic relations and shine a spotlight on its controversial migration policies, as well as financial support for the Libyan coast guard.
During a recent event at the Italian parliament, three men who claim to have suffered abuse at the hands of Anjiem voiced their desire for justice—not only for themselves but also for others who did not survive the perilous journey to Italy. David Yambio, a South Sudanese migrant and participant in the ICC investigation, described Anjiem’s return as “a huge betrayal, a significant disappointment.” The consequences for countries that fail to act on ICC warrants are minimal; past judgments against nations like South Africa, Kenya, and Mongolia came too late, as the suspects had already left the jurisdiction.
