This article critically assesses the role of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) in enforcing International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The ICC was designed to ensure accountability for severe IHL violations. However, its operational capacity faces significant challenges, particularly its reliance on state cooperation for enforcement and political resistance. This article explores the Court’s jurisdiction, the principle of complementarity, and its investigative processes while analyzing resistance from nonsignatory states such as the US, China, and Russia. The US sanctions against the ICC especially with President Trump’s executive order of February 6, 2025, will exemplify the ongoing tension between state sovereignty and international accountability. Additionally, the article highlights issues within the Rome Statute, including ambiguities regarding state cooperation, jurisdiction, and immunity, which affect the Court’s efficacy. Despite some successes in prosecuting high-profile leaders, the ICC’s credibility remains a matter of debate due to its limited enforcement, inconsistent state support, and continued political resistance.
The deployment of drones for targeted killings in recent years has sparked intense debates regarding the ethical and legal implications of their deployment in contemporary conflicts. Through an examination of the complexities surrounding the application of fundamental international humanitarian law (IHL) principles - such as differentiating targets and ensuring a proportionate response – and their deployment, the article aims to illuminate the potential legal ramifications of using drones in targeted killing. It also highlights challenges arising from the ambiguous distinction between combatants and non-combatants, compounded by the remote nature of drone missions. The inclusion of a few relevant case studies enhances the analysis, providing practical insights into the nuanced legal landscape and emphasising the pressing need for a comprehensive legal framework tailored to regulate drone usage. This paper stresses the immediate requirement for an effective regulatory structure to ensure adherence to IHL, thereby upholding humanistic principles and reducing the human toll of conflicts.