ICC and other tribunals’ efforts to prosecute leaders for international crimes and clarify responsibility

The international justice landscape in 2028 continues to evolve dynamically, marked by intensified efforts to hold political leaders accountable for international crimes through an increasingly interconnected web of institutions, legal doctrines, and civil society actors. At the forefront, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is advancing high-profile prosecutions, most notably the resumed pre-trial hearings against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, alongside a broader institutional and doctrinal push that challenges traditional shields of immunity and enhances enforcement mechanisms. Complementing the ICC’s work, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and national courts are asserting their roles in state responsibility and domestic accountability, while international tribunals address systemic human rights violations, exemplified by recent findings against the Taliban regime.

---

Renewed ICC Momentum: Duterte Case and Beyond

The ICC has regained significant traction in prosecuting former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, reaffirming the court’s resolve to tackle politically sensitive cases that hinge on complex command and indirect liability theories:

• Pre-trial hearings resumed in early 2028, with the prosecution advancing a detailed theory of Duterte’s liability as an indirect perpetrator under the doctrine of command responsibility. This strategic framing seeks to overcome evidentiary challenges by demonstrating how Duterte’s policies and directives facilitated widespread international crimes during the Philippine “war on drugs.”

• The defense vigorously contests the evidentiary basis, particularly the reliability of eyewitness accounts and state documents presented. They also argue procedural irregularities and stress fair trial guarantees, echoing broader tensions within international justice where political contexts complicate fact-finding.

• Duterte’s absence from recent hearings has sparked controversy among media and civil society observers, who underscore that his personal engagement is symbolically crucial for justice and deterrence. Some ICC judges and advocacy groups have called for detention or monitoring orders to mitigate risks of obstruction, reflecting heightened concerns about suspects evading accountability and influencing witnesses or evidence.

• The ICC docket is expanding beyond Duterte. Sanctions on Sudanese paramilitary leaders remain enforced, and Iranian opposition groups’ appeals concerning alleged missile strikes continue through ICC processes, indicating the court’s widening geographic and thematic scope.

---

Institutional Synergies: ICC, ICJ, National Courts, and NGOs

Accountability for international crimes increasingly emerges from the collaborative interplay between international tribunals and domestic jurisdictions, supported by civil society:

• A landmark ICC arrest warrant against an Israeli leader has amplified diplomatic tensions, underscoring the court’s growing political significance and its role in shaping international justice discourse.

• The ICJ’s June 2028 ruling ordering Israel to permit UNRWA humanitarian aid into Gaza exemplifies the court’s evolving mandate to enforce state obligations with immediate humanitarian impact, bridging gaps between criminal accountability and broader human rights enforcement.

• National courts continue to complement international prosecutions. Canada’s ongoing efforts to strip citizenship from Serbian war criminal Goran Pavic, and the Hague tribunal’s refusal to grant early release to Milan Martić, illustrate how domestic legal actions fill enforcement voids and reinforce accountability.

• Domestic judicial systems still face challenges. An Enab Baladi report reveals that, a full year after alleged crimes on Syria’s coast, local courts have yet to announce substantive results, highlighting persistent obstacles in national accountability mechanisms and the indispensable role of international judicial support.

• NGOs such as Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) have become vital partners, providing rigorously documented evidence of atrocities—like those in Myanmar—that are now pivotal in ICJ and ICC proceedings. Their contributions enhance the evidentiary foundation and legitimacy of prosecutions.

• The Berlin ICC Conference (early 2028) stressed the importance of institutional cooperation, universal jurisdiction, and synergy between national and international courts, calling for enhanced communication and procedural harmonization to strengthen the global accountability framework.

---

New Jurisprudential Developments: Taliban Tribunal and Systemic Violations

A significant recent development comes from a tribunal determination regarding the Taliban’s treatment of women in Afghanistan, underscoring the expanding scope of international justice to address systemic human rights violations perpetuated by non-state or de facto authorities:

• The March 2026 tribunal ruling found that the Taliban’s policies constitute systematic, intentional violations of women’s rights amounting to international crimes. This decision reinforces a growing trend where tribunals hold leaders and governing authorities accountable not only for isolated incidents but for widespread, institutionalized abuses.

• This ruling complements ongoing ICC and ICJ efforts by expanding the legal recognition of responsibility beyond formal states to entities exercising effective control, thereby broadening the contours of international criminal and humanitarian law.

---

Doctrinal Debates and Procedural Challenges

The prosecution of political leaders continues to test and refine core legal principles, with several contentious issues in focus:

• The erosion of head-of-state immunity for grave international crimes is increasingly accepted in doctrine and jurisprudence. Recent scholarship and tribunal decisions reinforce that immunity cannot shield leaders from prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, reflecting a normative shift away from absolute immunity.

• The timing and scope of responsibility remain debated, particularly concerning indirect perpetration and post-tenure liability. Cases such as the X-Press Pearl incident and ongoing ICC deliberations illustrate the difficulties in establishing when and how leaders become criminally liable for acts committed under their authority or influence.

• Evidentiary disputes and fair trial guarantees continue to challenge proceedings. Defense teams’ objections in the Duterte case highlight the delicate balance between rigorous proof standards and safeguarding against politically motivated delays or abuses.

• The interface between ICC criminal mandates and ICJ state responsibility rulings—notably under the Genocide Convention—reflects an evolving legal landscape where individual and collective duties to prevent and punish international crimes intersect and reinforce each other.

• Calls for multilateral reforms grow louder, emphasizing the need for enhanced cooperation, transparency, and inclusiveness in international institutions. Legal experts like Professor Oona A. Hathaway have underscored this critical juncture as both a peril and an opportunity to reimagine international law’s enforcement architecture amid geopolitical polarization.

---

Political and Operational Challenges

Despite institutional advancements, the prosecution of leaders for international crimes remains fraught with political, operational, and enforcement difficulties:

• Political interference and diplomatic backlash continue to complicate ICC efforts. The Duterte proceedings have ignited vocal opposition from Philippine political figures framing the ICC’s actions as intrusive or politically driven, a pattern mirrored in other high-profile ICC cases.

• The threat of obstruction of justice is acute, prompting calls for detention or surveillance measures to preserve the integrity of investigations and proceedings.

• Media coverage shapes public perceptions and legitimacy. Journalists and observers have expressed unease over Duterte’s absence from hearings, highlighting how leader participation—or lack thereof—affects the symbolic power of international justice.

• Conversely, the integration of civil society and NGOs into investigative and evidentiary processes has helped counterbalance political pressures by providing independent, credible documentation and advocacy.

---

Conclusion: Toward a More Accountable International Order

The developments in 2028 mark a critical phase in the global pursuit of accountability for international crimes. The ICC’s renewed momentum in prosecuting Duterte and other leaders, the ICJ’s assertive humanitarian rulings, the expanding role of national jurisdictions, and the recognition of systemic violations by tribunals collectively illustrate an increasingly robust, multi-layered accountability architecture.

While challenges persist—from evidentiary complexities to geopolitical resistance—the growing synergy among international tribunals, national courts, legal scholarship, and human rights organizations offers promising avenues to enhance the legitimacy, fairness, and effectiveness of international criminal justice. The international community now faces the urgent task of reinforcing cooperation, adopting necessary reforms, and sustaining political will to ensure that impunity for political leaders becomes an ever-diminishing reality.

The coming years will be decisive in shaping how international law governs the conduct of political leaders and protects fundamental human rights worldwide, with the 2028 milestones underscoring both the promise and fragility of this transformative moment.