CIRIS

Emerging Scholars Series

Vol. 7 (2026): Panoply Journal

International law and organizations, such as the ICC, ICJ or the UN Security Council, are often unable to prevent genocide and war crimes effectively

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71166/2yw0g516
Submitted
13 January 2026
Published
13 May 2026

Abstract

This paper evaluates the structural and political obstacles that prevent international institutions such as the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council from effectively preventing genocide. It discusses the limitations on the enforcement of state sovereignty and voluntary cooperation, rather than on a centralized, independent authority. Through case studies in Libya, Myanmar, Gaza, and Srebrenica, the research highlights how legal barriers and geopolitical interests often paralyze accountability and leave populations at risk. Furthermore, the analysis addresses ethical tensions in which efforts for judicial fairness can come at the expense of the urgent protection of victims.

The paper concludes by suggesting reforms, such as strengthening the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework and creating an independent enforcement body to minimize political interference.

References

  1. Alexander, K. (2024, March 1). The limits of international law: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Israel and the International Court of Justice. Elcano Royal Institute. https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/commentaries/the-limits-of-international-law-the-responsibility-to-protect-r2p-israel-and-the-international-court-of-justice/.
  2. Amnesty International. (2025) Gaza: Evidence points to Israel’s continued use of starvation to inflict genocide against Palestinians. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/gaza-evidence-points-to-israels-continued-use-of-starvation-to-inflict-genocide-against-palestinians/.
  3. Amnesty International. (n.d.). International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: Achievements and shortcomings. https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ior400131998en.pdf.
  4. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) (n.d.). https://www.icj-cij.org/case/178.
  5. Benson, P. (2025, August 14). ‘False’ claims by NGOs ignore Hamas’s role in aid diversion, Israel says. Israel.com.https://israel.com/politics/false-claims-by-ngos-ignore-hamass-role-in-aid-diversion-israel-says/.
  6. Bloxham, D. (2020, January 27). The Rohingya case gets a hearing. Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-rohingya-case-gets-a-hearing/.
  7. Chapman, T. L., & Chaudoin, S. (2010, November 29). The limits of an international war crimes regime. https://wp.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Conf4_Chapman-Chaudoin-30.11.2010.pdf.
  8. Deen-Racsmány, Z. (2026, February 11). The Gambia v. Myanmar and the Nature of Genocidal “Intent to Destroy” before the ICJ (As Opposed to Criminal Courts). Opinio Juris. https://opiniojuris.org/2026/02/11/the-gambia-v-myanmar-and-the-nature-of-genocidal-intent-to-destroy-before-the-icj-as-opposed-to-criminal-courts/.
  9. European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights & Refugees in Libya. (n.d.). Situation in Libya at the International Criminal Court. In POSITION PAPER. https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/250613_ECCHR_PP_ICC_EN.pdf.
  10. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ohchr-assessment-human-rights-concerns-xinjiang-uyghur-autonomous-region.
  11. ICTY remembers: The Srebrenica Genocide (1995 - 2015). (n.d.). https://www.irmct.org/specials/srebrenica20/index.html?utm_.
  12. International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192.
  13. Kenya and Sudan: the Two Cases that Shaped Africa’s Criticism towards the ICC | ISPI. (2022, December 9), ISPI. https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/kenya-and-sudan-two-cases-shaped-africas-criticism-towards-icc-16454.
  14. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel (2024). Israel’s war against Hamas: Legal and operational aspects. Jerusalem: MFA. mfa-response-to-the-icc-prosecutor-s-decision-20-may-2024.
  15. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-protection-civilian-persons-time-war.
  16. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I). United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and.
  17. Refugees International. (2024, March). Siege and starvation: How Israel obstructs aid to Gaza. https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/siege-and-starvation-how-israel-obstructs-aid-to-gaza/.
  18. Roper, S. D., & Barria, L. A. (2008). State co-operation and International Criminal Court bargaining influence in the arrest and the surrender of suspects. Leiden Journal of International Law, 21(2), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156508005037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156508005037
  19. Shany, Yuval. (2012). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts: A Goal-Based Approach. American Journal of International Law - AMER J INT LAW. 106. 225-270. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.2.0225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.2.0225
  20. Shereshevsky, Y. (2025). Complementarity (un)fairness: Powerful states and their ability to avoid ICC proceedings by conducting domestic investigations. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 23(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaf013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaf013
  21. The Concluding Stage of The Gambia v Myanmar Genocide Case Before the International Court of Justice - Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (2026, February 13). Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/the-concluding-stage-of-the-gambia-v-myanmar-genocide-case-before-the-international-court-of-justice/.
  22. The Law Institute. (2023, December 9). Exploring the challenges faced by the International Criminal Court. https://thelaw.institute/application-of-ihl/challenges-international-criminal-court/.
  23. Translation | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. (n.d.). https://www.icj-cij.org/index.php/node/140305.
  24. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2025, June 24). Gaza Humanitarian Response Update, 8–21 June 2025. https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/gaza-humanitarian-response-update-8-21-june-2025.
  25. United Nations. (1948, December 9). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Conventio%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf.
  26. United Nations. (2018). The responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (A/72/884–S/2018/525). General Assembly & Security Council, 72nd session. United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1630312.
  27. Veličković, M. (2024). Ethical challenges of using trial transcripts for research purposes: A case study of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrad020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrad020