No Cops, No Borders: The Unfortunate Reality of International Law

International Law is Not Enforceable

The tricky thing about international law is that it relies on countries participating with each other to enforce treaties. The United Nations does not have the ability to pursue criminal cases for breaking international laws—that is left up to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

There is no “international law enforcement” department to enforce international laws, so the ICC relies on the cooperation of countries for support in making arrests, transferring persons, freezing assets, and enforcing sentences.

The laws are suggestive, as they are not strictly enforced, although there are methods to encourage countries to abide by them. International law has no bearing on domestic laws, and in countries like the United States, legislation from Congress prohibits US courts from enforcing punishment for breaking international laws.

There are two international courts in The Hague, a city in the Netherlands, both responsible for upholding international law in different ways.

Crimes Under International Law

In 1998 the UN convened to sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a treaty to create the ICC and define four international crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression.

Originally, 120 countries signed the Statute on July 17, 1998, but it entered into force on July 1, 2002, only after receiving the required 60 ratifications. Signatures did not automatically mean ratification; each country had to confirm treaties through its own legal system, making it legally binding. As of 2025, 125 countries have ratified the Statute.

Four states, however, signed and then later notified the UN Secretary General that they did not wish to ratify the treaty, therefore they wouldn’t be legally bound by the terms which they had originally agreed to. Those four are the United States, Israel, Sudan, and Russia. Hungary recently announced they were withdrawing from the ICC to protect Netanyahu, if countries can withdraw at any time and refuse to cooperate with the ICC, the sanctity of the court and international law is moot.

The Statute defined limits and expectations for the ICC, which operates on treaty law. The ICC’s authority only applies to countries that have ratified the Statute. However, there are loopholes. One is if the UNSC refers a case to the ICC, as happened with Sudan. Another is if individuals from a non-party state commit crimes in a party state, or vice versa. The ICC is limited to crimes committed after July 1, 2002.

The Rome Statute defines the four international crimes as follows:

“For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in party, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. . .”

“For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. . .”

“The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.”

This wording requires investigations to determine:

A) if crimes were committed

B) if they were intentional

C) if they were widespread or systematic

D) if the government or military had knowledge

E) if there were plans or policies.

Barriers to Investigations

The ICC only intervenes when national courts fail to act; there is no automatic authority. However, they may intervene if a state is unwilling or unable to prosecute, or if the UNSC refers a case. Despite bureaucratic challenges, the ICC has opened several investigations into genocide, aggression, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, many of which are still ongoing as of 2025.

Before the ICC can authorize investigations, they must conduct preliminary evaluations of the evidence and determine if it is in their jurisdiction. During investigations, they collect both incriminating and exonerating evidence, and the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. Before arrest warrants can be issued, judges must ensure there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial. If the case is closed without a guilty verdict, it may be reopened later if the Prosecutor has new evidence.

People often argue there was no intent or government knowledge in cases of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. Others argue that the crimes didn’t meet all the specific requirements, ignoring that genocide includes any one of the listed acts. Similar arguments are made about crimes against humanity and war crimes. Additionally, it’s often argued that attacks must be both widespread and systematic or involve a formal military operation, but the definitions says, “widespread or systematic” and allow for paramilitary or civilian actors. Attacks must be intentionally committed against civilians, and proving intent is often difficult.