In an era of geopolitical tensions, governments often reach for two familiar tools in the international realm: sweeping economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. These measures are quick to impose, politically visible and framed as “pressure” on rogue regimes. Yet time and again, the heaviest price is paid not by the leaders who ordered atrocities or corruption, but by ordinary civilians—children denied medicine, families pushed into poverty, entire economies crippled. There is a proven, more precise alternative already embedded in international humanitarian law: Individual Criminal Responsibility. This mechanism targets the actual perpetrators—presidents, generals, warlords—rather than entire populations. It cannot force non-party states to join its treaty, yet it has repeatedly delivered accountability where collective punishment has failed. The missing ingredient? Media awareness. Once journalists, editors and citizen platforms shine a spotlight on this tool, it can move from legal footnote to the default response, saving countless lives in the process.
By shifting the focus from abstract state entities to the natural persons who plan, order, or perpetrate international crimes, the international legal order can achieve genuine accountability, deterrence, and reconciliation without violating fundamental prohibitions against collective punishment.
Article 25 of the Rome Statute: The Cornerstone of Personal Accountability
Article 25(1) of the Rome Statute is unequivocal: “The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.” Paragraph 2 adds that “[a] person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.” The provision then details modes of liability—direct perpetration, ordering, aiding and abetting, common-purpose liability, and superior responsibility—ensuring that no one who bears personal culpability can hide behind the veil of state sovereignty. The mental element requires intent and knowledge under Article 30, with genocide demanding specific intent. Critically, no official capacity—head of state or government—confers immunity when acting in a personal capacity.
The Rome Statute (1998) establishes that certain offences are of such gravity that they concern the international community as a whole. The ICC exercises jurisdiction over individuals—not states—when national courts are unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute, under the principle of complementarity.
Proceedings follow strict due process: investigation, issuance of arrest warrants where necessary, trial, and sentencing up to life imprisonment. Conviction demands proof beyond reasonable doubt. This individual focus stands in sharp contrast to state-level sanctions, which impose collective economic pressure without distinguishing between decision-makers and ordinary citizens.
Practical Examples Demonstrating Effectiveness
The ICC’s record shows that targeting perpetrators directly can isolate them, encourage behavioural change, and support stability without inflicting collective harm.
Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Democratic Republic of Congo) became the Court’s first convict in 2012 for enlisting and conscripting children under 15 as soldiers. This landmark case drew global attention to the crime and produced measurable deterrence: subsequent reports indicated that armed groups in various conflicts became more cautious about child recruitment, with some releasing children to avoid similar scrutiny.
Similarly, Bosco Ntaganda, a senior militia commander in the DRC, was convicted in 2019 and sentenced to 30 years for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, and sexual slavery. His removal from the battlefield contributed to relative stabilisation in parts of Ituri province and underscored that even high-ranking figures face personal consequences.
Additionally in Mali, Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz was convicted in 2024 of war crimes and crimes against humanity—including torture, persecution, mutilation, and outrages upon personal dignity—committed in Timbuktu in 2012–2013 under jihadist control. He received a 10-year sentence (later adjusted on review). The case demonstrated accountability for non-state actors in asymmetric conflicts and reinforced the Court’s reach beyond traditional battlefields.
This is not a novel invention but the culmination of a century-long evolution in international law. The principle directly rejects the notion that states, as abstract entities, commit crimes; only human beings do. By prosecuting individuals, the ICC pierces the shield of officialdom and places responsibility exactly where it belongs—at the feet of presidents, generals, ministers, and militia leaders.
This preference for individual responsibility is not academic theory; it is the considered position of the most authoritative voices in international law. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg declared in its 1946 judgment: “Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” This single sentence remains the foundational text of modern international criminal law.
Collective Sanctions and Their Human Cost
Collective sanctions and diplomatic isolation, by contrast, operate on an entirely different logic. They punish the many for the sins of the few. History is littered with examples. Broad economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation, while sometimes effective, frequently prove counterproductive. Comprehensive regimes such as those imposed on Iraq in the 1990s led to documented spikes in child mortality, malnutrition, and disease, with estimates running into hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Similar patterns emerged in Haiti (1993–1994), Iran, and Venezuela, where shortages of food, medicine, and essential goods exacerbated humanitarian crises without achieving regime change or policy reversal.
Autocratic leaders often exploit such measures to cultivate a “siege mentality,” consolidate power by redistributing scarce resources to loyalists, and weaken domestic opposition. Over-compliance by banks and corporations, driven by fear of secondary penalties, further restricts humanitarian exemptions. Decades of comprehensive sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s caused widespread civilian suffering while Saddam Hussein’s inner circle remained insulated. Related patterns have been observed elsewhere.
Empirical studies consistently place the success rate of broad sanctions in achieving major policy shifts at roughly 13–30 per cent, yet the civilian toll remains disproportionately high. The point is not that these tools are never justified; rather, they are blunt instruments that too often punish the many for the actions of the few.
I keep coming back to one simple truth: if we truly want to end impunity and break the cycle of violence, we must stop punishing nations and start prosecuting the individuals who give the orders. Article 25 gives us the legal framework. Nuremberg gave us the moral foundation. The ICC gives us the institution. The only thing missing is the political will to use them more decisively.
The time has come for the international community to make a clear choice: individual criminal responsibility under Article 25 must become our primary response, not an afterthought. Sanctions and isolation have their limited place, but they must never again be allowed to substitute for real justice.
The Imperative of Media Awareness
This is precisely why media awareness of individual criminal responsibility must become part of media discourse. At present, sanctions dominate headlines as the visible, politically expedient response to atrocities. The ICC and similar mechanisms are routinely depicted as slow, selective, or ineffective, obscuring their comparative advantages in precision and humanity. State litigation’s inefficiencies—political manipulation, delays, and uneven application render it suboptimal for the enforcement of individual criminal responsibility. Media offers immediate exposure, shaming perpetrators and mobilising global responses without jurisdictional hurdles.
In the Russia-Ukraine war, media coverage influenced ICC investigations by highlighting alleged war crimes and shaping public support for accountability. Similarly, reporting on the Israel-Gaza conflict has drawn international attention to potential atrocity crimes and intensified calls for legal scrutiny, despite political resistance.
Investigative journalism and digital documentation have become increasingly significant in this context. Journalists, local reporters, and independent investigators frequently gather photographic, video, and testimonial evidence that later becomes valuable for international criminal investigations. In many conflicts, early documentation by media organisations has preserved evidence that might otherwise have been lost, thereby supporting future prosecutions and strengthening accountability mechanisms.
Social media platforms and citizen journalism have also expanded the reach of this process. Footage captured by civilians and verified by journalists can rapidly expose atrocities to a global audience. While such material must be carefully authenticated, it plays a crucial role in generating public awareness and maintaining international pressure for legal accountability.
High-profile trials create a historical record, dismantle denialist narratives, and educate both the affected population and the global public. Citizens begin to see that their suffering was caused not by some immutable national fate but by the criminal decisions of identifiable leaders. This awareness is essential for post-conflict reconciliation. It prevents the dangerous conflation of “the regime” with “the people,” reducing the risk of cyclical violence and revenge.
Civil-society organisations, former diplomats who have witnessed sanctions’ unintended consequences, and legal experts all have roles to play in amplifying these narratives.
The voluntary character of the Rome Statute system reinforces its legitimacy: states choose to participate because the mechanism aligns with shared values of justice without coercion. Greater public understanding will gradually shift the Overton window, encouraging policymakers to rely on this framework instead of reflexive collective punishment.
Skeptics frequently highlight the institutional limitations of the International Criminal Court, particularly the fact that several major powers remain outside the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and that enforcement ultimately depends on state cooperation. These concerns are not without merit. Arrest warrants cannot be executed without the assistance of national authorities and political considerations sometimes delay or obstruct proceedings. Yet these limitations do not undermine the core normative value of individual criminal responsibility. Even where arrests are delayed, indictments themselves carry significant consequences: they stigmatise perpetrators, restrict international mobility, delegitimise regimes that harbour them, and preserve a record of accountability that can be enforced when political conditions change.
The international community must recalibrate its response to atrocity crimes. In an era when international responses to atrocities continue to exact heavy civilian tolls, elevating individual criminal responsibility through informed discourse is not merely a legal preference—it is a moral and practical necessity. Media scrutiny can, and must, drive that evolution.
