International justice: as fragile as it is necessary

In different parts of the world, there are people who keep files and testimonies for years, clinging to the hope that one day there will be justice. When the courts in their own countries offer no answers, many victims turn to international justice as a last resort.

Faced with a judiciary accused of participating in human rights violations or lacking independence—as has been alleged in the Venezuelan case—or faced with the impossibility of bringing powerful political and military leaders before weak or nonexistent local courts, as argued in the Palestinian context, international justice emerges as a promise of some response to the atrocities suffered. However, these expectations today face an international justice system that is increasingly questioned and subject to pressures that call its effectiveness into question.

Tensions and Fragilities of International Justice

After World War II, the world committed to cooperation and common rules that would protect human rights and security. Within this framework, international tribunals and human rights protection systems emerged, seeking to function as impartial arbiters. However, this transformation of the international environment has not only strained its functioning but has also revealed deep structural vulnerabilities. The problems facing international justice today can be grouped into at least three categories:

Erosion of legitimacy. The international legal order depends largely on the political will of states to accept and comply with the rules they themselves have created. When court decisions prove inconvenient, some governments openly question their authority, reinterpret their obligations, or even choose to withdraw from international systems. A clear example is Venezuela’s decision to withdraw from the American Convention on Human Rights in 2012, which meant abandoning the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, after receiving multiple rulings against it for violations related to political repression and restrictions on freedom of expression.

Legitimacy has also been challenged by the perception of selectivity. For example, the Rome Statute grants the Security Council the power to refer situations to the International Criminal Court (ICC), even when the events occur in states that are not parties, but also to request the suspension of investigations or prosecutions for renewable periods. This design reflects the dominance of states with greater political power within the international system and subordinates judicial bodies to political decisions. These have resulted, for example, in a greater emphasis on investigations in countries of the Global South.

In practice, the veto has been used to block investigative initiatives in cases such as Syria and Myanmar, while referrals have been pushed forward in situations primarily involving African countries. These dynamics reinforce the perception that international justice does not operate on neutral ground, but rather in a space marked by power balances and disputes.

Design flaws. The courts lack their own mechanisms to enforce their decisions. Unlike national systems, they have no direct coercive power; compliance with their rulings depends on the cooperation of states. This inability to enforce rulings weakens the courts’ credibility and fuels the perception that their rulings are more aspirational than effective.

Added to this are operational problems that affect their effectiveness and their proximity to victims. Examples of this include geographical centralization (with decisions concentrated in The Hague in the case of the ICC and the International Court of Justice); and the predominant use of English and French as working languages creates a gap between the discourse of universality and the actual experience of access to justice. 

Limited budgetary sustainability. International courts depend almost exclusively on contributions from states, which creates structural instability in their funding. The expansion of their mandates and caseloads has not been accompanied by a proportional increase in resources. For example, in the Inter-American System, the Commission and the Court have operated with persistent deficits and a heavy reliance on external voluntary contributions, which has exacerbated their financial fragility. Furthermore, this undermines the ability to maintain robust teams capable of improving the experience of justice users—for instance, by removing barriers such as language or by facilitating more expeditious decisions.

This dependence opens the door to the politicization of the budget. Voluntary contributions can direct resources toward certain investigations of interest to specific states, while delays or non-payment of mandatory contributions can serve as a means of exerting pressure. For example, at the ICC, the significant increase in contributions following the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine stood in contrast to previous years of budget freezes.

Read another article from the latest issue of El Sur Global: Justice in check, but not yet a checkmate

Why Does International Justice Matter?  

Despite the limitations and tensions it faces today, international justice remains, in many contexts, the last hope. It is important precisely because it should operate where national systems fail or refuse to act. When a state fails to investigate, fails to punish, or even protects those responsible, international courts are the last chance to achieve justice.

Although the crisis of multilateralism has highlighted the fragility and limitations of international courts, comparative experience shows that, even in contexts of complex and multi-causal crises, their existence can make a significant difference. One example was the ICC’s application of positive complementarity in the Colombian case—that is, the use of its mandate to encourage and support national authorities in investigating and prosecuting crimes against humanity. In this context, the ICC promoted the creation of the Justice and Peace process and the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP). 

In a world plagued by wars and the arbitrary exercise of power, international justice matters because it establishes a legal boundary against impunity. However, recognizing its importance does not mean ignoring its shortcomings. International justice faces real problems—delays, selectivity, political tensions, and institutional and budgetary constraints—that must be taken seriously. However, the response to these shortcomings cannot be to gradually abandon them, but rather to open up debates and make adjustments that allow these mechanisms to adapt to the new global landscape.