The Rome Statute: Constitutional Architecture of the International Criminal Court
I. Introduction: The Codification of International Accountability
The adoption of the Rome Statute on July 17, 1998, marked a definitive constitutional moment in the history of public international law. It signified the transition from a Westphalian order, where the sovereign immunity of states was absolute and internal atrocities were shielded from external scrutiny, to a new paradigm of individual criminal accountability.1 The Rome Statute is not merely the procedural rulebook for the International Criminal Court (ICC); it is a constitutive treaty that synthesizes humanitarian law, human rights law, and criminal law into a coherent, permanent supranational jurisdiction.3
Unlike the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), which were created by United Nations Security Council resolutions with retroactive mandates and limited temporal scope, the Rome Statute established a prospective, permanent court with a separate international legal personality.4 This permanence was designed to act as a standing deterrent against the "most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole"—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.1
The Statute’s architecture rests on a delicate equilibrium between the imperatives of universal justice and the realities of state sovereignty. This balance is codified primarily through the principle of complementarity, which renders the ICC a court of last resort, functioning only when national legal systems are unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute.6 Furthermore, the Statute incorporates complex jurisdictional triggers and preconditions (Articles 12 and 13) that reflect the arduous diplomatic negotiations required to secure its passage against the opposition of major global powers.8
This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the Rome Statute, dissecting its historical genesis, its institutional design, its substantive criminal code, and its procedural mechanisms. It explores how the Statute serves as the foundation of the ICC, dictating everything from the definition of crimes to the rights of the accused and the participation of victims.
II. Historical Genesis and Drafting Dynamics
The road to Rome was paved with the precedents of Nuremberg and Tokyo, yet the creation of a permanent court required overcoming geopolitical hurdles that the post-WWII military tribunals did not face. The negotiation process, culminating in the 1998 United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, was a struggle between two competing visions of international order.9
A. From the ILC Draft to the Preparatory Committee
The United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) had been tasked with drafting a statute for a permanent court as early as 1948, but Cold War paralysis stalled the project for decades. It was not until 1994, spurred by the atrocities in the Balkans and Rwanda, that the ILC submitted a draft statute to the General Assembly.9 This draft envisioned a court significantly more subordinate to the UN Security Council than the one eventually adopted.
Between 1995 and 1998, the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) held frequent sessions to refine the text. During this phase, a coalition known as the "Like-Minded Group" (LMG) emerged. Comprising approximately 60 states—including Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and many African and Latin American nations—the LMG advocated for a court with inherent jurisdiction over core crimes, an independent prosecutor, and independence from the Security Council veto.8
B. The 1998 Rome Diplomatic Conference
The five-week conference in Rome was characterized by intense friction between the LMG and a bloc of powerful states, often referred to as the "Great Powers" or P-5 (specifically the United States, China, and Russia), who sought to limit the Court’s reach to preserve their strategic autonomy.12
Several "killer amendments" and red lines dominated the negotiations:
Universal Jurisdiction vs. State Consent: The "German Proposal" argued for universal jurisdiction, where the Court could prosecute core crimes regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of the perpetrator. This was fiercely opposed by the United States, which feared its military personnel deployed globally would be subject to politically motivated prosecutions. The resulting compromise (Article 12) rejected universal jurisdiction in favor of a regime requiring a territorial or nationality link.13
The Role of the Prosecutor: The LMG pushed for a prosecutor empowered to initiate investigations proprio motu (on their own motion). The US and others argued this would lead to a "rogue prosecutor." The compromise was Article 15, which allows proprio motu powers but subjects them to strict review by a Pre-Trial Chamber.1
Security Council Control: The P-5 sought a mechanism where the Security Council could veto any ICC investigation. The LMG successfully inverted this; Article 16 allows the Security Council to defer an investigation for 12 months, but only through a positive resolution under Chapter VII, which requires a majority vote and no veto—a much higher threshold than a simple blocking power.4
The Statute was finally adopted on July 17, 1998, with 120 states voting in favor, 7 against (including the US, China, Israel, and Iraq), and 21 abstaining. This overwhelming majority signaled a global consensus on the necessity of the Court, despite the abstention of major military powers.8
III. Institutional Constitution: Legal Personality and Organs
The Rome Statute creates the ICC as an independent international organization with international legal personality (Article 4), distinct from the United Nations system. This independence is critical; the Court is funded primarily by its Assembly of States Parties (ASP) and has its own administrative structures, although it relies on the UN for cooperation under a relationship agreement (Article 2).3
A. The Presidency (Article 38)
The Presidency acts as the strategic and administrative head of the Court, comprising the President and two Vice-Presidents elected by the judiciary. While it has no role in the Prosecutor's decisions, it oversees the Registry and assigns situations to the Chambers (Article 38(3)). The Presidency is responsible for the external diplomatic relations of the Court, negotiating headquarters agreements and fostering cooperation with states.3
B. The Chambers (Article 39)
The judicial functions of the Court are compartmentalized into three divisions to ensure fair trial standards and appellate review.
Pre-Trial Division: This is a unique feature of the ICC compared to common law systems. The Pre-Trial Chambers (PTC) act as a judicial filter. They issue warrants of arrest (Article 58), govern the disclosure of evidence, and most importantly, confirm charges before a trial can commence (Article 61). This ensures that weak cases are filtered out early, protecting the rights of the accused.16
Trial Division: Responsible for the conduct of the trial proceedings. The Trial Chamber has broad powers to control the presentation of evidence (Article 64) and ensure the protection of victims and witnesses.
Appeals Division: Composed of five judges who do not sit on other chambers, ensuring total independence. They hear appeals on final verdicts and interlocutory matters (Article 81, 82). The Appeals Chamber establishes the jurisprudence of the Court, ensuring consistency in the interpretation of the Statute.17
C. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) (Article 42)
The OTP is the "engine room" of the ICC. Article 42 establishes it as a separate organ with "full authority" over the management and administration of its resources. This separation is vital to prevent judicial interference in prosecutorial strategy. The Prosecutor is elected by the Assembly of States Parties for a non-renewable nine-year term, a provision designed to insulate the office from political pressure or reelection concerns.18
The OTP functions across three main divisions:
Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division (JCCD): Analyzes referrals to determine if they meet legal thresholds.
Investigation Division: Collects evidence in the field.
Prosecution Division: Litigates cases before the chambers.
D. The Registry (Article 43)
The Registry handles the non-judicial aspects of the Court’s administration. It is a neutral organ serving both the Defense and the Prosecution. A critical innovation within the Registry is the Victims and Witnesses Unit (Article 43(6)), which provides protective measures, security, and counseling. This reflects the Statute's victim-centric approach, which differs markedly from the Nuremberg model where victims were mere sources of evidence.15
E. Financing: The Structural Achilles Heel
The Court is funded through assessed contributions from States Parties (Article 115) and voluntary contributions. Unlike UN tribunals, it does not draw from the general UN budget unless a situation is referred by the Security Council (Article 115(b)). However, in practice, the UN General Assembly has often refused to fund Security Council referrals (e.g., Darfur, Libya), forcing the ICC to bear the financial burden. This reliance on state contributions creates a vulnerability; states can withhold funding or threaten withdrawal to exert political pressure.19
IV. Jurisdiction and Admissibility: The Limits of Power
The Rome Statute does not grant the ICC universal jurisdiction. Instead, it creates a complex jurisdictional regime bounded by territory, nationality, and time.
A. Preconditions to Jurisdiction (Article 12)
Article 12 represents the "Singapore Compromise" that saved the conference. It dictates that for the Court to exercise jurisdiction (in the absence of a UNSC referral), one of the following states must accept the jurisdiction of the Court:
The State on whose territory the conduct occurred (Territoriality).
The State of which the person accused is a national (Nationality).1
This formulation effectively means that nationals of non-State Parties (like the United States, Russia, or China) are generally outside the Court's reach unless they commit crimes on the territory of a State Party. This "territorial loophole" is the primary source of US opposition to the Court, as it exposes US personnel acting in ICC member states (e.g., Afghanistan) to investigation.12
B. Trigger Mechanisms (Article 13)
The Statute provides three distinct mechanisms to trigger the Court's jurisdiction. The interplay between these triggers and the Article 12 preconditions is crucial for understanding the Court's reach.
State Party Referral (Article 13(a)): A State Party may refer a "situation" (not a specific case against a specific person) to the Prosecutor. This has been the most common trigger (e.g., DRC, Uganda, Mali), often involving "self-referrals" where states invite the ICC to prosecute rebels.21
Security Council Referral (Article 13(b)): The UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, can refer a situation to the Prosecutor. This is the only trigger that bypasses the Article 12 preconditions, granting the Court jurisdiction over non-State Parties (e.g., Sudan, Libya). This power asserts the Court's role in maintaining international peace and security but also subjects it to the political will of the P-5.22
Proprio Motu Investigation (Article 13(c)): The Prosecutor may initiate an investigation on their own initiative based on information received from individuals or NGOs. To prevent abuse, this power is checked by Article 15, which requires the Prosecutor to seek authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber before opening a full investigation. The Chamber must determine if there is a "reasonable basis to proceed" and if the case appears to fall within the Court's jurisdiction.1
C. Admissibility and Complementarity (Article 17)
Central to the Rome Statute is the principle of Complementarity, which dictates that the ICC is not a court of first instance but a court of last resort. Article 17 establishes that a case is inadmissible if:
The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction.
The case has been investigated and the State has decided not to prosecute.
The person has already been tried (ne bis in idem - Article 20).1
The "Unwilling or Unable" Exception:
The ICC can only override national proceedings if the state is "unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution."
Unwillingness (Article 17(2)): The Court looks for proceedings undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility, unjustified delays, or a lack of independence and impartiality.23
Inability (Article 17(3)): This applies where there is a total or substantial collapse of the national judicial system, or the state is unable to obtain the accused or necessary evidence.24
This creates a "two-step" admissibility test that protects state sovereignty while ensuring impunity is not maintained through sham proceedings.7
D. The Gravity Threshold (Article 17(1)(d))
In addition to complementarity, Article 17(1)(d) mandates that a case is inadmissible if it is "not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court." This "gravity threshold" acts as a resource management tool, preventing the Court from prosecuting minor offenses. Gravity is assessed both quantitatively (scale of crimes, number of victims) and qualitatively (nature of the crimes, impact on peace and security). This threshold has been used to exclude cases that, while technically crimes, do not reach the level of international concern required for ICC intervention.25
V. Substantive Criminal Law: Defining the "Most Serious Crimes"
Part 2 of the Statute (Articles 5-8) defines the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court. These definitions are exhaustive and subject to the principle of strict construction (nullum crimen sine lege), ensuring that the Court cannot create new crimes by analogy.1
A. Genocide (Article 6)
The Statute adopts the definition of genocide from the 1948 Genocide Convention without modification. It encompasses five specific acts (killing, causing serious harm, inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy, preventing births, forcible transfer of children) committed against a protected group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious).1
Mental Element: The defining feature of genocide is the dolus specialis or specific intent "to destroy, in whole or in part" the group as such. This high evidentiary bar distinguishes genocide from crimes against humanity or war crimes, where such specific intent is not required.1
B. Crimes Against Humanity (Article 7)
Article 7 represents a significant evolution in international law. Unlike the Nuremberg Charter, which required crimes against humanity to be connected to an armed conflict, the Rome Statute allows for their prosecution in peacetime.
Chapeau Elements: The acts must be committed as part of a "widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population" pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy.27
Underlying Acts: The Statute lists 11 acts, including murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, torture, rape/sexual violence, and the crime of apartheid. The inclusion of "forced pregnancy" and "enforced disappearance" codified developments in human rights law that had not previously been criminalized in an international treaty.1
C. War Crimes (Article 8)
Article 8 is the most detailed provision, covering grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs of war.
International vs. Non-International Conflict: A crucial innovation of the Rome Statute is the extensive criminalization of acts committed in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), such as civil wars (Article 8(2)(c) and (e)). This reflects the reality of modern warfare, where internal conflicts are more prevalent than inter-state wars.11
Opt-Out Clause (Article 124): To secure the participation of reluctant states (notably France), Article 124 allowed states to opt out of the Court's jurisdiction over war crimes for a period of seven years after ratification. This transitional provision has since been deleted by amendment, but it illustrates the compromises made in 1998.11
D. The Crime of Aggression (Article 8 bis)
Aggression was included in Article 5 of the 1998 Statute but was left undefined due to deep disagreements. It was not until the 2010 Review Conference in Kampala that a definition was adopted in Article 8 bis.
Definition: Aggression is defined as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression which, by its "character, gravity and scale," constitutes a "manifest violation" of the UN Charter.
Leadership Clause: Crucially, the crime applies only to persons in a position "effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State." This limits liability to high-level political and military leaders; ordinary soldiers cannot be prosecuted for aggression.29
The Jurisdictional Firewall (Articles 15 bis & 15 ter):
The Kampala amendments created a unique and restrictive jurisdictional regime for aggression:
State Referrals/Proprio Motu (Art 15 bis): The Court has no jurisdiction over aggression committed by nationals or on the territory of a State Party that has not ratified the amendments. Furthermore, it has no jurisdiction over nationals or territory of non-State Parties, even if they commit aggression against a State Party. This creates a "safe haven" for aggressors from non-member states unless the Security Council acts.31
UNSC Referral (Art 15 ter): This remains the only mechanism to prosecute aggression involving non-ratifying states or non-State Parties, maintaining the Security Council's primacy in matters of peace and security.31
VI. General Principles of Criminal Law
Part 3 of the Statute (Articles 22-33) codifies the "General Principles of Criminal Law," ensuring that the ICC operates with the rigors of a criminal court rather than a political tribunal.
A. Principles of Legality (Articles 22-24)
Nullum Crimen Sine Lege (Article 22): Conduct must be criminalized by the Statute at the time it occurs. Ambiguities must be interpreted in favor of the accused (in dubio pro reo).
Nulla Poena Sine Lege (Article 23): A person may only be punished in accordance with the Statute.
Non-Retroactivity (Article 24): The Court has no jurisdiction over conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute (July 1, 2002).1
B. Individual Criminal Responsibility (Article 25)
Article 25(3) sets out the modes of liability, detailing how an individual can be held responsible for crimes they did not physically commit with their own hands.
Commission (Article 25(3)(a)): This includes committing a crime "as an individual, jointly with another" (co-perpetration), or "through another person" (indirect perpetration). The ICC jurisprudence has utilized the German legal theory of Organisationsherrschaft (control over an organization) to convict leaders who use an organized apparatus of power (e.g., a militia or army) to commit crimes, treating them as principal perpetrators rather than mere accessories.21
Accessory Liability: Includes ordering, soliciting, inducing (Art 25(3)(b)) and aiding/abetting (Art 25(3)(c)).
Common Purpose (Article 25(3)(d)): This provision covers contributions to a crime committed by a group acting with a common purpose. It requires that the contribution be intentional and made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity. This is distinct from the "Joint Criminal Enterprise" (JCE) doctrine of the ad hoc tribunals, reflecting a stricter statutory approach to conspiracy-like liability.35
C. Command Responsibility (Article 28)
Article 28 codifies the liability of superiors for the acts of their subordinates. It distinguishes between military and civilian commanders:
Military Commanders: Liable if they knew or should have known that forces were committing crimes and failed to prevent/punish them. This is a negligence standard.
Civilian Superiors: Liable only if they knew or consciously disregarded information indicating crimes. This higher standard protects civilian leaders from being held liable for military actions they might not fully comprehend or control.1
D. Mental Element (Article 30)
Unless otherwise provided (e.g., the specific intent for genocide), a person is criminally responsible only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge.
Intent: The person means to engage in conduct or means to cause a consequence.
Knowledge: Awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. This excludes forms of recklessness or dolus eventualis generally, requiring a higher degree of certainty for conviction.1
E. Grounds for Excluding Responsibility (Article 31)
The Statute provides specific defenses, including mental disease or defect, intoxication (if involuntary or destroying capacity), self-defense, and duress.
Superior Orders (Article 33): The fact that a crime was committed pursuant to an order of a superior is not a defense, unless: (a) the person was under a legal obligation to obey; (b) the person did not know the order was unlawful; and (c) the order was not manifestly unlawful. Crucially, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are deemed manifestly unlawful per se.3
VII. Procedural Law and the Rights of the Accused
The Rome Statute creates a procedural system that blends elements of the adversarial (common law) and inquisitorial (civil law) traditions.
A. Investigation and Prosecution
The Prosecutor has duties to extend the investigation to cover all facts and evidence, whether they point to guilt or innocence (Article 54). This objective truth-seeking mandate is a civil law feature. However, the trial itself is largely adversarial, with the Prosecutor and Defense presenting evidence before the judges.
Rights during Investigation (Article 55): Suspects have the right to remain silent, to have legal assistance, and to not be compelled to incriminate themselves.
B. Confirmation of Charges (Article 61)
Before a trial can begin, the Prosecutor must convince a Pre-Trial Chamber that there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe the person committed the crime. This confirmation hearing is a critical safeguard against frivolous prosecutions and allows the Defense to challenge the evidence early in the process.3
C. Disclosure and Evidence
The Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) govern the disclosure of materials. The Prosecutor must disclose to the Defense any evidence that mitigates guilt or affects the credibility of prosecution evidence (Article 67(2)). The Court has broad discretion to admit evidence, prioritizing relevance and probative value over strict technical rules of admissibility found in some national systems (Article 69).1
D. Victims' Participation and Reparations
A defining feature of the Rome Statute is the standing it grants to victims. Unlike in the ICTY/ICTR, victims at the ICC can participate in proceedings through legal representatives, presenting their views and concerns where their personal interests are affected (Article 68(3)). Furthermore, Article 75 allows the Court to make orders for reparations to victims, including restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation. The Trust Fund for Victims (Article 79) facilitates this by implementing court-ordered reparations and providing general assistance to affected communities.19
VIII. Cooperation and Enforcement: The Operational Challenge
As a treaty-based body, the ICC lacks the enforcement powers of a sovereign state. It has no police force to execute arrest warrants and no territory to imprison convicts. It relies entirely on the cooperation of states, governed by Part 9 of the Statute.
A. General Obligation to Cooperate (Article 86)
States Parties are legally bound to "cooperate fully" with the Court in its investigations and prosecutions. This includes the surrender of persons, identification of assets, and service of documents (Article 93).
B. The Problem of Non-Compliance (Article 87)
If a State Party fails to comply with a cooperation request, the Court may make a judicial finding of non-compliance and refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) or the Security Council (if it referred the situation).
The Al-Bashir Impasse: The limitations of this system were starkly illustrated in the case of Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan. Despite ICC arrest warrants, Al-Bashir traveled to several ICC member states (e.g., South Africa, Jordan, Chad) without being arrested. While the ICC issued non-compliance findings, the Security Council took no enforcement action, exposing the "toothless" nature of the Court when political will is lacking.39
C. Article 98 Agreements (Bilateral Immunity Agreements)
Article 98 prohibits the Court from proceeding with a request for surrender if it would require the requested state to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law regarding state or diplomatic immunity. The United States leveraged this article to conclude "Article 98 Agreements" or Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) with over 100 states. These agreements stipulate that the state will not surrender US personnel to the ICC. The legality of these agreements is contested; the ICC generally interprets Article 98 as applying to Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) rather than broad impunity pacts, but they remain a significant impediment to the Court’s reach.41
IX. Evolution: Amendments and Withdrawal
The Rome Statute includes mechanisms for its own evolution, ensuring it can adapt to changing international norms.
A. Amendment Procedures (Article 121)
Amendments generally require a two-thirds majority of the ASP. However, amendments to the definitions of crimes (Articles 5-8) enter into force only for those states that ratify them (Article 121(5)). This creates a fragmented jurisdictional landscape. For example, amendments criminalizing the use of starvation in non-international armed conflicts (adopted in 2019) apply only to ratifying states.28
B. Withdrawal (Article 127)
Article 127 allows a State Party to withdraw from the Statute by written notification, taking effect one year later. Withdrawal does not absolve the state of obligations arising while it was a party, nor does it affect ongoing investigations.
The African Union Pushback: In 2016-2017, Burundi, South Africa, and The Gambia signaled intention to withdraw, citing bias against African nations. While South Africa and The Gambia rescinded their notices, Burundi became the first state to leave the ICC in 2017. The Philippines followed suit in 2019. Despite withdrawal, the ICC retained jurisdiction over crimes committed in these territories prior to the withdrawal taking effect (e.g., the Philippines drug war investigation).43
C. Future Prospects: Ecocide
Proposals are currently circulating to amend Article 5 to include Ecocide as a fifth core crime. Led by states like Vanuatu and Fiji, this initiative seeks to criminalize "unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term damage to the environment." While still in the proposal stage, it demonstrates the capacity of the Rome Statute to evolve in response to global existential threats.45
X. Conclusion
The Rome Statute stands as the indispensable foundation of the International Criminal Court. It is a document of immense complexity, reflecting the tension between the aspiration for a world free of impunity and the persistent reality of state power. Its architectural innovations—complementarity, the independent prosecutor, the specific definition of crimes, and the participation of victims—have fundamentally altered the landscape of international law.
However, the Statute is also a document of compromise. The jurisdictional loopholes of Article 12, the reliance on state cooperation in Part 9, and the restricted regime for the crime of aggression testify to the limitations placed upon the Court by its creators. The Statute creates a judicial giant, but one that relies on the political will of states to move and act. As the ICC faces challenges of non-compliance, withdrawal, and funding, the Rome Statute remains the battleground where the future of international justice is being negotiated, amended, and interpreted. It is not a static text, but a living constitution for a global community striving to ensure that the "most serious crimes" do not go unpunished.
Works cited
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court | OHCHR, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court
Rome Statute - Wikipedia, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010), accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.refworld.org/legal/constinstr/unga/1998/en/64553
Commentary Rome Statute: Part 1: Case Matrix Network, accessed on December 16, 2025, http://www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/icc-commentary-clicc/commentary-rome-statute/commentary-rome-statute-part-1
Cut off by their banks and even iced out by Alexa, sanctioned ICC staffers remain resolute, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/international-court-sanctions-trump-icc-hague-4cdefe4de067432f6cdb9b137908c463
complementarity | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/complementarity
What is Complementarity? - National courts, the ICC and the ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/subsites/complementarity-icc/
The International Criminal Court Treaty: Description, Policy Issues ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30020.html
The Birth of the International CriminalCourt: The 1998 Rome ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-yearbook-of-international-law-annuaire-canadien-de-droit-international/article/birth-of-the-international-criminalcourt-the-1998-rome-conference/4EC353AB96C47805E4477065DFD10A43
The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=ils
Article 124, War Crimes, and the Development of the Rome Statute, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1265&context=facsch_lawrev
The International Criminal Court vs. the American People, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/report/the-international-criminal-court-vs-the-american-people
The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2341&context=scholarly_works
Rome Diplomatic Conference for an International Criminal Court | ASIL, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/3/issue/7/rome-diplomatic-conference-international-criminal-court
International Criminal Court (ICC) - Oxford Public International Law, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e42
Institutional Framework of the ICC Chapter 1 - Commonwealth iLibrary, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.thecommonwealth-ilibrary.org/index.php/comsec/catalog/download/805/805/6448?inline=1
Trial and Appeal (Chapter 8) - An Introduction to the International ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/an-introduction-to-the-international-criminal-court/trial-and-appeal/5454E08DDAF6EEA901336A6596F67EA8
Office of the Prosecutor: International Criminal Court (ICC), accessed on December 16, 2025, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3359.013.3359/law-mpeipro-e3359?p=emailACv8juDunSdic&d=/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3359.013.3359/law-mpeipro-e3359
Full article: The evolution of funding for the International Criminal Court, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14754835.2022.2156276
Who Pays For The ICC? - African Business, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://african.business/2011/10/economy/who-pays-for-the-icc
Commentary Rome Statute: Part 3: Case Matrix Network, accessed on December 16, 2025, http://www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/icc-commentary-clicc/commentary-rome-statute/commentary-rome-statute-part-3
UN Security Council Referrals to the ICC and the Principle of Legality, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.ejiltalk.org/un-security-council-referrals-to-the-icc-and-the-principle-of-legality/
8. UNWILLINGNESS - Brill, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://brill.com/display/book/9789047431749/Bej.9789004169098.i-536_009.pdf
Rome Statute Art. 17 - CJAD, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://cjad.nottingham.ac.uk/en/RS/17/
Gravity Debate — Which are the Most Important Cases that the ICC ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://iccforum.com/gravity
The Gravity Threshold of the International Criminal Court, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1037&context=auilr
The International Criminal Court Statute: An Appraisal of the Rome ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1950&context=til
Amendments to the Rome Statute - Wikipedia, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Rome_Statute
Kampala - Amendment on the Crime of Aggression.pdf, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://foreign.gov.mt/wp-content/uploads/Treaties/Kampala%20-%20Amendment%20on%20the%20Crime%20of%20Aggression.pdf
The Crime of Aggression at the International Criminal Court, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://ulag.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/The-Crime-of-Aggression-at-the-International-Criminal-Court-1.pdf
Conditions for action by the ICC, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://crimeofaggression.info/role-of-the-icc/conditions-for-action-by-the-icc/
The Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression Before ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, http://opiniojuris.org/2017/09/29/the-kampala-amendments-on-the-crime-of-aggression-before-activation-evaluating-the-legal-framework-of-a-political-compromise/
general principles of criminal law in the rome statute - Kai Ambos, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.department-ambos.uni-goettingen.de/data/documents/Veroeffentlichungen/epapers/General_Principles.pdf
Individual Criminal Responsibility in Article 25 ICC Statute, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://legal-tools.org/doc/f50d22/pdf/
The Level of 'Contribution' Required Under Article 25 (3) (D ... - Cairn, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_RIDP_831_0221/pdf?lang=en
ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://ihd.org.tr/en/rome-statute-of-the-international-criminal-court-preamble23/
General Rules and Principles of International Criminal Procedure, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/ee4de3/pdf/
English No.: ICC-01/04 Date: 13 July 2006 THE APPEALS CHAMBER, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a60023/pdf/
Rethinking the ICC's Struggle with State Non-Compliance, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.berkeleyjournalofinternationallaw.com/post/sovereignty-and-stalemates-rethinking-the-icc-s-struggle-with-state-non-compliance
How the UNSC and ASP can enhance cooperation with the ICC - AWS, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/pb124.pdf
The interplay between Articles 27 and 98 of the Rome Statute, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-interplay-between-articles-27-and-98-of-the-rome-statute-a-familiar-friend-makes-a-new-appearance-in-the-arrest-warrants-against-netanyahu-and-gallant/
Article 98 of the Rome Statute: U.S. Immunity Agreements in ... - ASJP, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://asjp.cerist.dz/en/downArticle/315/17/3/255005
Rome Statute - Part 13. Final Clauses - OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS |, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/13.htm
ICC Withdrawal Strategy - Human Rights Watch, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/supporting_resources/icc_withdrawal_strategy_jan._2017.pdf
Proposed Ecocide Amendment to the Rome Statute, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/proposed-amendment-to-the-rome-statute/
Ecocide: A New Avenue for Climate Justice?, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.wy4cj.org/legal-blog/ecocide-a-new-avenue-for-climate-justice
