ICC Faces Pressure to Expand War Crime Mandate

Renewed Push to Prosecute Acts of Aggression

The International Criminal Court (ICC), headquartered in The Hague, is at the center of an escalating international debate over its current limitations in prosecuting one of the gravest violations of international law: the crime of aggression. Although the court has been instrumental in addressing war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, its jurisdiction still does not fully extend to prosecuting leaders who initiate wars of aggression—especially when committed by or on the territory of states not party to its founding treaty, the Rome Statute.

Germany and Switzerland are among the countries now spearheading efforts to change this. During a special session of the Assembly of States Parties in New York, set to run over three days, diplomatic delegations are discussing a long-awaited amendment to the Rome Statute that would allow the ICC to prosecute the crime of aggression if it takes place on the territory of an ICC member state—even if the perpetrator’s country does not recognize the court.

The Legal Blind Spot in Global Justice

The absence of a clear mandate to address aggression has long been criticized as a serious flaw in the international legal order. Although the crime was formally introduced into the Rome Statute during a 2010 conference in Kampala, only around 40 states ratified the amendment, and many added legal loopholes allowing them to avoid prosecution. Major global powers, including the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, pushed back against the amendment—fearing that their own military actions, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, could come under legal scrutiny.

Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine reignited international attention on this legal gap. While the ICC has since issued arrest warrants for several Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, for war crimes—such as the forced deportation of Ukrainian children—there has been no legal recourse for the act of aggression itself: the unprovoked military invasion. This limitation has led critics to call for urgent reform.

Germany and Switzerland Step Forward

Germany, which has long supported the ICC, is lobbying for a comprehensive reform to the Rome Statute that would eliminate the current limitations around prosecuting aggression. In a 2023 speech in The Hague, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock emphasized the need to address what she described as a foundational gap in international criminal law. Her proposal includes both long-term revisions to the ICC’s mandate and support for temporary solutions, such as a dedicated tribunal for Russian crimes against Ukraine.

Switzerland has joined Germany in pushing for change. Following Ukraine’s formal ratification of the Rome Statute in late 2024, which took effect on January 1, 2025, Switzerland reiterated its call for all member states to support the special session in New York. The Swiss government emphasized that legal accountability for aggression must become enforceable in practice, not just in theory. While supportive of the European Council’s parallel effort to establish a special tribunal for aggression against Ukraine, Switzerland has raised concerns over the tribunal’s limited scope and its potential deviation from international due process standards.

US Resistance and Political Contradictions

Despite renewed European support for expanding the ICC’s authority, the United States remains a key obstacle. Although it is not a party to the Rome Statute, the U.S. has historically influenced ICC developments. Recently, the U.S. imposed sanctions on four ICC judges in response to investigations involving American military personnel in Afghanistan and arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. Washington’s position reflects a broader unwillingness to allow international bodies to challenge U.S. foreign policy or military actions.

Further complicating the diplomatic picture are recent remarks from German officials that cast doubt on Germany’s commitment to the ICC’s authority. Statements suggesting that arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not be enforced in Germany have weakened Berlin’s stance in international negotiations and undermined the credibility of its calls for stronger international justice mechanisms.

Global Scrutiny Over War Profiteering

As calls to expand the ICC’s jurisdiction intensify, another layer of accountability is being introduced into the international discourse: the role of private corporations in conflict. A new report from UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese accuses global companies of profiting from the ongoing Israeli military campaign in Gaza. She has called for targeted sanctions and legal investigations into corporate actors allegedly complicit in human rights violations and war profiteering.

The report, presented to the UN Human Rights Council, underscores the complex interplay between geopolitical decisions and economic incentives. Albanese argues that the continuation of large-scale violence is, in part, enabled by international corporate supply chains that provide military equipment and services—often with little legal consequence.

Reform or Stalemate?

The success of the current reform initiative depends on whether a two-thirds majority of ICC member states present at the session in New York can agree to amend the Rome Statute. But many diplomats and observers remain skeptical. Powerful nations continue to wield significant influence, and efforts to hold aggressors accountable often clash with political and economic interests.

Nonetheless, the growing consensus among middle-power democracies like Germany and Switzerland suggests a shift in momentum. With Ukraine now fully within the ICC’s legal framework, the court faces a historic opportunity to redefine the scope of international criminal justice. Whether this results in a stronger, more consistent legal system—or yet another compromise—remains uncertain.