What is the ICC?

The ICC (International Criminal Court) is a permanent international court created in 2002 to investigate and prosecute individuals for the most serious of crimes that concern the global community greatly such as –  but not limited to – genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression (ICC CPI, 2025). It was established by the Rome Statute, which laid down the court’s jurisdiction as well as a framework for justice that continues to be updated and amended every once in a while according to the current times. 

Crimes of Aggression

The Kampala Amendments, passed in 2010 to be implemented in 2018, adds Article 8 bis and 15 bis and 15 ter. These articles focus on adding a definition to crimes of aggression and outlining the framework for jurisdiction and prosecution, respectively. 

According to Article 8, crimes of aggression refer to the “planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations,” wherein an act of aggression refers to the “use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations”. 

Article 15 provides a framework for the prosecution and processing of crimes of aggression, however, it is somewhat narrow as it states only countries where the leaders that have ratified the amendments can be prosecuted, and prosecution requires United Nations Security Council’s support which can be overpowered by VETO powered countries. This also means that the ICC cannot prosecute any crimes of aggression that involve states that don’t ratify (legally accepted)  or aren’t under the Rome Statute, regardless of being the aggressor or the victim of aggression. 

The Problem

Currently, many legal experts and human rights activists argue that the ICC’s current rules and frameworks for crimes of aggression are extremely limited in scope, outdated from modern warfare (i.e., cyberattacks, drone warfare, and hybrid conflicts), and may be over-reliant on the UN and cooperation of member states. 

There has also been talk of needing to amend these clauses more to address these concerns. Former and Current Presidents of the Assembly of States of the ICC recently published that they have called for reforms within the ICC, and that there are still many opportunities to strengthen the ICC (Just Security, 2025). The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is often preoccupied with additional agendas to address crimes of aggression as soon as cases are filed, and there arises the need to enhance the ICC’s ability to address crimes of aggression more urgently. The article also mentioned the ICC States Parties to have a meeting in July 2025 that may deliberate on this matter.

Case Studies on Crimes of Aggression 

1. Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine (2022-Present)

In February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which is a clear case of a crime of aggression under the Rome Statute, Article 8 bis. However, Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute and hasn’t ratified the Kampala Amendments, while Ukraine hasn’t ratified aggression jurisdiction. Because of this, the ICC can only prosecute Russia for its war crimes, and not for its crimes of aggression. The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for war crimes, but not for aggression, despite it being the root crime (Joldoshev, 2024). 

However, if jurisdiction rules change to remove the “double consent” clause, the ICC may prosecute leaders such as President Vladimir Putin for their initial act of aggression in addition to war crimes. Furthermore, state cooperation is definitely needed for such prosecutions and arrests to be put into action, and reforms may be made against defying the Rome Statute for states such as Mongolia (Green, 2024).

2. The USA’s invasion of Iraq (2003)

The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States of America in the search for Saddam Hussain was greatly criticized as illegal under international law due to the lack of authorization by the Security Council, and as weapons of mass destruction were never found (BBC, 2023). Legal scholars consider this an act of aggression due to the atrocities committed against the Iraqis over governmental affairs. Despite Iraq being a party state of the ICC, the USA is not, and so the ICC does not have jurisdiction to prosecute the USA for the acts of aggression.

If the ICC were to adjust the rigidity of their jurisdiction limits, future illegal invasions and aggressions will be able to be prosecuted, the ICC may proceed even when some involved states are not members.

3. Israel-Palestine Conflict in Gaza

The ICC is currently investigating possible crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza by both Israeli and Palestinian state actors (Al Jazeera, 2024). Many international legal experts argue that Israel’s blockade and use of force may be a crime of aggression if found to be violating the UN Charter. While Palestine is a member of the ICC and has ratified the jurisdiction, Israel has not - and under current rules, this means that the ICC cannot investigate Israel for aggression. 

However, if reforms allow unilateral acceptance of the ICC jurisdiction where only the victim state needs to ratify it, or define aggression in broader terms, such as long-term blockades, then Israel’s leadership could face legal scrutiny over aggression as well.

ICC on Amendments on Crimes of Aggression

On July 9th, 2025, the ICC Assembly of States’ Parties passed ICC-ASP/S-1/Res.1: “The review of the amendments on crimes of aggression” (ICC CPI, 2025). This resolution, which passed on consensus, acknowledges and recognizes the gaps in jurisdiction the ICC has over crimes of aggression compared to the other three core crimes. It essentially decides to hold a special session in New York in 2029 to discuss an attached proposal of amendments for crimes of aggression, and to also discuss and explore other ways the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression may be enhanced, as outlined in clause 2 of the resolution.

Such a resolution shows the commitment the International Criminal Court has for ensuring that the ICC can do its job and provide fair justice to various crimes.

ICC on Gender-Based Violence

In ICC terms, Gender-based/related violence refers to “any violence committed because of someone’s sex, gender or gender identity, especially in conflict, e.g, rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy, gender-based persecution, violence against LGBTQ+ individuals, etc. (Office of the Prosecutor, 2023).”

In many previous cases, the ICC has been slow, inconsistent, and politicized, with cases often taking years and having poor conviction rates, especially due to the complex rules of procedure (Wilmshurst, 2021). 

Only a select few high-ranking leaders were convicted, and judges and prosecutors were often accused of regional bias. Additionally, past ICC standards have been criticized for the inconsistent use of evidence thresholds, poor witness protection, and lack of victim participation and reparations, with weak performance in cases involving gender-based violence.

ICC Cases of Gender-Based Violence

1. Jean-Pierre Bemba Case (2010-2018)

Jean-Pierre Bemba was the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Mouvement de libération du Congo (Movement for the Liberation of Congo) (MLC), and was convicted in 2016 over charges of rape, murder, and pillaging (International Criminal Court, 2019). His trial started in November, 2010, and was acquitted by majority vote in June, 2018. 

This was the first ICC case to hold a commander responsible for failing to prevent sexual violence. However, his acquittal had caused public outcry and much disappointment on the ICC.

2. Bosco Ntaganda Case (2019)

Bosco Ntaganda was the Former Deputy Chief of Staff and commander of operations of the Forces Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo (FPLC), and was convicted in 2019 for rape and sexual slavery as war crimes and crimes against humanity (International Criminal Court, 2022). He was declared guilty in July 2019, and was later sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment. The ICC issued him a final Order on Reparations to victims in March 2021. 

This became a milestone as the first time rape against child soldiers was successfully prosecuted.

3. Dominic Ongwen Case (2016-2021)

Dominic Ongwen was a Brigade Commander of the Sinia Brigade of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and was convicted in 2021 on 61 charges, including forced marriage and pregnancy, along with crimes against humanity and war crimes (International Criminal Court, 2015). He was declared guilty in 2021, and was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. The ICC issued an Order on Reparations to victims in February 2024.

This was the first case to treat forced pregnancy as a war crime under Rome Statute Article 7(1)(g).

How can the ICC improve further on Gender-Based Violence?

On December 20, 2021, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) launched a public consultation regarding a policy initiative to “advance accountability for the crime against humanity of persecution on the grounds of gender under the Rome Statute” (International Criminal Court, 2021). Building on the 2014 Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes (2014), the policy intends to promote more transparency and accountability regarding crimes like this. This treats Gender-Based Persecution/Violence as a standalone crime and encourages more aggressive charging. It will also allow the increased use of forensic, psychological, and trauma-informed investigation methods.

Suppose the ICC continues to improve such standards, it will allow them to handle aggression cases with gender components effectively, hold leadership more accountable for gender-based violence, and show that international justice includes gender justice, making the ICC a progressive organisation and allowing future war crimes and crimes against humanity to be taken more seriously.

To conclude, the ICC's recent courtroom reforms, such as improved victim participation, broader access to evidence and reparations, and the establishment of a Trust Fund for victims, demonstrate a growing commitment to justice and support (Policies and Strategies | International Criminal Court).  the introduction of gender advisors, updated prosecutorial policies, and measures to speed up trials, reduce defense delays, and enhance transparency in legal proceedings mark crucial progress toward addressing gender-based violence more effectively (ICC & ICL Programme Reports | International Bar Association).

These reforms reflect the Court’s evolving role in ensuring that gender justice is not a secondary concern but a core element of international accountability moving forward.