商品簡介
Established under the Rome Statute, the ICC represents one of the most ambitious developments in international criminal justice: a permanent institution created to combat impunity, prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression, deter future atrocities, and contribute to justice for victims. Yet, more than two decades after its establishment, fundamental questions remain about the Court's actual effectiveness. This book provides a critical examination of the ICC's effectiveness in preventing international crimes and protecting victims' rights. It argues that the success of an international court must be assessed against the objectives for which it was established. It distinguishes between outputs and outcomes, demonstrating empirically that the ICC's effectiveness should be assessed not only by case outcomes but also by its capacity to influence behaviour and perceptions. While it agrees that investigations, indictments, arrests, trials, and judgments are important institutional outputs, they do not necessarily demonstrate effectiveness. The book therefore asks whether the ICC prosecution matrix and process indicators generate meaningful outcomes, including deterrence, accountability, stronger domestic justice systems, legal and normative development, and meaningful protection to bridge the gap between victims' expectations and institutional capabilities. Particular attention is given to the ICC's deterrent function and the challenges of measuring prevention. The book develops a multidimensional evaluation framework using indicators such as state cooperation, enforcement of Court decisions, domestic implementation of the Rome Statute, legal precedents, changes in accountability practices, and evidence of behavioural and normative change. It places victims' protection at the centre of the debate on effectiveness, examining victim participation, protection, reparations, assistance, and the broader impact of international criminal proceedings. A significant contribution is reconciling mixed empirical findings on the courts' deterrent effectiveness through a context-specific, actor-focused analytical framework.
