Last updated on October 1, 2025
For the past 20 years, the International Criminal Court has proclaimed itself the solution to the world’s most heinous crimes but refuses to acknowledge one simple truth: justice is not one-size-fits-all.
From applying the same Western framework to every nation, ignoring their unique laws and culture, to their suffocating bureaucracy where it takes a billion dollars to prosecute one person, to appointing judges who don’t even have a law degree, time and time again the ICC has tried to force a square peg into a round hole.
Thankfully, the world has noticed. Amidst an empty docket for 2025 and countries like Burundi and the Philippines leaving the court, the international community is leaving the ICC behind, turning instead to an alternative: hybrid courts.
Hybrid courts combine international expertise with local judges, allowing adaptation to a country’s unique context. Unlike the ICC, which applies a one-size-fits-all approach, a new hybrid court can be created for every situation, seeing success in Cambodia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and more.
Hybrid courts are easily better than the ICC. Consider…
1] Local Justice
One of the clearest failures of the ICC is its disconnect from local realities. Because hybrid courts operate at the site of the crime, they have greater access to eyewitness evidence and utilize local judges. Compare that to the ICC, where Western judges make decisions thousands of miles away from countries they never visited before.
Thus, hybrid courts’ mix of local and international judges ensures a grasp of local experiences, leading to decisions that are not only just but more likely to be respected than the ICC.
And when people are satisfied with verdicts, they are less likely to rebel, so peace was six times more likely without the ICC.
2] Timeframe
The ICC holds defendants in prison for up to five years before trial. In contrast, hybrid courts’ tightly focused mandates and limited period of operation mean that, naturally, they’re faster.
And as the ICC indecisively twiddles its thumbs, struggling to come to a verdict, the war criminals escape and continue atrocities. In Sudan, three suspects escaped as the ICC stalled for four years.
3] Costs
Unsurprisingly, the ICC’s inefficiencies continue into finances. But since hybrid courts don’t have the same bureaucracy, hybrid courts are two times cheaper, acting as one of the most effective criminal forums.
Despite the ICC having spent $2 billion overall, they’ve only successfully prosecuted 4 people for major crimes and there is NOT one trial scheduled for 2025.
4] Jurisdiction and Reform
Since the ICC can only prosecute countries signed onto the Rome Statute, more than half of the world’s population is not under the court’s jurisdiction, letting bad actors get off scoff free.
And for the future, hybrid courts not only prosecute but help locals build up a rule of law and create legal infrastructure, allowing them to be independent in their pursuit for human rights in the long term.
Ultimately, the ICC has failed and it’s time to spotlight a new form of adjudication. In today’s world, justice must be local, efficient, and for everyone. Justice must be hybrid.
Be First to Comment