There are several reasons for this inability of national institutions, such as, first, the absence of political will to prosecute their own citizens or high ranking officials. This situation was witnessed in the former Yugoslavia. Second, these national institutions could have been destroyed, as was the situation in Rwanda. In the absence of justice there cannot be peace, without law no justice, and when there is no court to decide what is just and lawful there can be no meaningful law (United Nations, 1999). An international criminal court achieves justice for all, ends impunity, helps in ending conflicts, remedies the defects in ad hoc tribunals, provides an alternative to national criminal justice institutions that are unable or unwilling to act, and to acts as a deterrent for future war criminals.
In reality, the ICC has not achieved greater success than the ad hoc tribunals that it supplants. Akin to the tribunals of Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the ICC does not act swiftly. Moreover, it is devoid of a system for enforcing its decisions. This makes it dependent upon governments to arrest and present perpetrators before it. Albeit, the ad hoc tribunals had this defect, they were able to rely on a UN Security Council resolution requiring international cooperation in executing the arrest warrants. In addition, the ICC is devoid of forceful checks on its authority (Schafer & Groves, 2009). Theoretically, the nations that had ratified the Rome Statute were to control the ICC; however, this has not been realized in practice.
Schafer, B. D., & Groves, S. (2009, August 18). The U.S. Should Not Join the International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 17, 2015, from The Heritage Foundation: