The ICC, which came into force in 2002, was held up by human rights activists as a force that would transform a culture of impunity into a culture of accountability. However, after five years of activity, the evidence suggests that the Court's effect has been mixed. Its ability to achieve retributive justice, broader reconciliation and restorative justice, as well as to deter future offences and promote peace has been variable, at best. Despite the Court's claim that politics are not its job, political missteps and support are adversely affecting the work of a judicious Court. Using the cases of Uganda and Darfur, this paper argues that the most significant factors impacting the Court's ability to achieve the four aims outlined are its lack of enforcement capacity, lack of international political will, the result of geo-political interests and concerns over the norm of state sovereignty, and lack of attention to political context by the Court itself.

No description available.