The effectiveness of international criminal law demands clarity in respect of the law and jurisdiction and fairness in its enforcement requiring state support. discuss Thank you in advance for the help! International criminal law (ICL) is not an old maxim. The concept generally emerged after the occurrence of World-War II. However, even after more than 50 years of its development, the law is still subjected to numerous contentions and controversies. Several international lawyers strongly believe that ICL lacks uniformity and autonomy that makes quite difficult for its widespread application. At the same time, it is debated that ICL has complex and rigid impact on the sovereignty of a nation. The major sources of ICL are identified to be treaties, Customary International Law (CIL), general principle of law, judicial decisions and learned writing. The scope and operation of these sources of ICL in establishing liability for crimes are argued to be not clarified. The role of International Criminal Courts (ICCs) in prosecuting the international grave crimes such as genocide, war crime and crime against humanity are claimed to be extremely important. However, according to the principle of complementarity, ICCs are entitled to intervene and criminalise crime only when states are unable or unwilling to provide proper jurisdiction1. Against this backdrop, the study discusses about the effectiveness of ICL, which demands clarity in respect of the law and jurisdiction and fairness in its enforcement requiring state support.
International criminal law (ICL) is a discrete body or subsection of public international law. In general, international law deals with inter-state relations, while ICL is paradigmatically related with restrictions placed to individuals. More specifically, international law defines responsibilities of individuals rather than states.