As international pressure mounts to hold the Taliban accountable for alleged crimes against humanity and gender-based violence, the distinct roles of two major global judicial bodies — the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — have come under scrutiny. Each court has a unique mandate, functions independently, and operates under separate legal frameworks.
The ICC, often described as a vital tool in the fight against impunity, was established in 2002 following the ratification of the Rome Statute by 60 countries. The court’s mandate is to prosecute individuals accused of grave offenses, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the ICC “the cause of all humanity,” underscoring its global mission to deter and punish those responsible for heinous crimes.
Governed by 18 judges, the ICC’s leadership includes a President and two Vice Presidents. The ICC’s proceedings are initiated by a Prosecutor, who has the authority to decide which cases to pursue. As of now, several Afghan human rights activists, including Seema Nouri, have called on the ICC to investigate alleged crimes by the Taliban, with particular focus on accusations of war crimes, genocide, and other human rights abuses. “The ICC must conduct its own investigations into Taliban crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide,” Nouri stated. “Once evidence is gathered, the court can issue arrest warrants to bring justice.”
Conversely, the ICJ, established in 1945, deals with disputes between states rather than prosecuting individuals. Known as the “World Court,” the ICJ handles cases on issues such as territorial disputes, treaty violations, and other matters of international law. Its proceedings are instigated not by a prosecutor but by the countries themselves. When one nation files a case against another, the ICJ is compelled to hear it, provided it falls within its jurisdiction. The court does not impose criminal penalties but rather issues binding rulings on the states involved.
The ICJ’s role has recently been highlighted in a new initiative by Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, and Canada, which collectively called for action against the Taliban at the ICJ for severe violations of women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan, citing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The initiative, supported by 26 countries and U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, seeks to address allegations of gender-based violence and oppression under Taliban rule.
This growing international movement has garnered support from Afghan activists, including Masouda Kohistani, who advocates for holding the Taliban accountable for what she describes as “gender apartheid and crimes against humanity.” Kohistani said, “The Taliban should be brought to court for the ongoing atrocities committed against women and girls in Afghanistan.”
In response, the Taliban have maintained that they respect human rights, asserting there is no discrimination against citizens under their rule. However, many rights groups and observers dispute these claims, pointing to widespread reports of oppression and abuses since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. The United Nations Human Rights Council recently issued a statement condemning the Taliban’s use of corporal punishment and other alleged violations.
While both the ICC and the ICJ are based in The Hague, their separate mandates mean they will likely play distinct roles in ongoing efforts to address the Taliban’s actions. The ICC’s potential investigations into individual Taliban leaders could lead to criminal indictments, while the ICJ’s proceedings would focus on state-level accountability and legal obligations under international treaties.
As the world watches, the roles of the ICC and ICJ underscore the complexities of international justice, especially in cases involving non-state actors and volatile geopolitical contexts. Whether through criminal prosecution or state-level adjudication, these institutions continue to be central to global efforts in pursuing justice and accountability for Afghanistan’s most vulnerable populations.
