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.

Article 69(7) of the International Criminal Court Statute develops a specific rule to exclude evidence and thus ensure evidentiary reliability and procedural integrity before its proceedings. China has introduced the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence that places an overriding priority on pursuing factual accuracy, because the rule has been devised and applied primarily for the sake of preventing miscarriages of justice and bolstering governmental integrity. A political imperative for truth makes the rule incompatible with the existing institutional environment. The ICC’s rule and practice illuminates the importance of neither assuming the excellence of the rule nor borrowing the rule without modification, but of exploring the rule that is based upon one’s own practical experience, institutional structure, and political powers. This article embraces the room for flexibility, experimentation, and adaptation that can contribute to a healthy scheme for legal transplant and law reform.