This article asks whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) deters atrocity crimes during civil wars, and whether its effects differ for government and rebel forces. Using what the author describes as the most extended look yet at the ICC’s record in African civil wars, the study compares competing views that the Court is ineffective, escalatory, or differentially influential across actors. The contribution is a qualified, evidence‑based assessment that the ICC appears to have different effects on rebels than on state forces in the conflicts examined.
Bold phrases: African civil wars, International Criminal Court actions, no link to higher civilian killings
Data and methods
The article evaluates the ICC’s record in African civil wars over the Court’s first two decades. The abstract describes a systematic, comparative examination of ICC activities and wartime outcomes in this regional set of cases; specific variables, statistical models or identification strategies are not detailed in the supplied abstract.
Main findings
According to the abstract, the study finds that existing perspectives are incomplete: the ICC does not appear to have deterred African government forces in the examined conflicts, while there is "highly suggestive evidence" that more ICC actions during ongoing conflicts are associated with deterrence of rebel forces. The abstract also states the analysis found no indication that ICC involvement is associated with increased civilian killings by either side.
- ICC actions have disproportionately targeted rebel actors in the cases studied.
- Evidence is described as "highly suggestive" rather than definitive, and the abstract emphasizes qualifications about interpretation.
