Casting a shadow over war zones? Hard truths about the ICC’s efforts to deter wartime atrocities

Abstract Twenty years after the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) entered into force, the ICC’s role in preventing atrocity crimes remains controversial, with skeptics arguing that it is unrealistic, pessimists that it overlooks the potential of the Court to escalate conflicts, and optimists contending that it can work for both government and rebel leaders. I argue that during civil wars the ICC is only likely to deter rebel forces, given that Court officials are likely to have an easier time pursuing their leaders should they commit atrocity crimes. This article systematically evaluates these competing claims by providing the most extended look yet at the ICC’s record in African civil wars, the primary focus of the Court’s efforts to date. I find that existing perspectives do not tell the full story of the ICC’s impact in war zones. The results suggest that the ICC has failed to deter African government forces. However, I uncover highly suggestive evidence that the more actions the ICC takes to pursue suspected war criminals during ongoing conflicts, the more likely it is to deter rebels. Notably, most of these ICC actions have targeted rebels. Importantly, I find no indication that the ICC is associated with increased civilian killings by either government or rebel forces. With the permanent ICC, the shadow of criminal prosecution now extends to modern-day conflicts. This study helps to broaden our understanding of how and when the ICC might contribute to deterrence.