The ICC was meant to end impunity for the world’s worst crimes, thus contributing to their prevention. But twenty years after its establishment, its “theory of change” remains unclear, and few studies focus on its impact on the ground. To assess the Court’s impact, it is necessary to define the assumptions underlying its establishment. While deterrence is one such assumption, to date the evidence that the ICC effectively deters crimes is lacking. Other assumptions can be found in the Rome Statute itself, or in the expressed intentions of the Assembly of States Parties or senior officials of the Court. Lessons can also be drawn from impact studies of other international criminal tribunals. These sources indicate that the ICC should play an expressive function by engaging in norm projection. The chapter identifies four intended effects of the Rome Statute and ICC, including systemic effect on domestic legal systems; transformative effect on peace processes; reparative effect on victims; and demonstration effect, relating to its expressive function among affected communities. These four effects form an analytical framework to assess the impact of the ICC.

Chapter 8 concludes that the ICC’s existence has not resulted in a short-term reduction in atrocities. It is not a shortcut to Utopia, but its long-term preventive impact is too early to assess. Through its expressive function, the Court is having normative impact. In terms of “systemic effect,” the Court may have the most impact where it is the least needed, or its impact may be hindered by “parallelism.” At the same time, there is potential in the internalization of the Rome Statute by domestic legal systems over time. In two peace negotiations, a measure of punishment for perpetrators was included, although this did not necessarily mean imprisonment. However, its normative impact is undermined by its lack of societal impact, including a lack of impact on victims. In this respect the ICC represents “law” rather than “justice.” Victims’ rights are recognized in the Rome Statute, but these have not yielded concrete remedies. The Court also suffers from negative perceptions among affected populations. To move from law to justice, the Court should seek to maximize its impact, through a better understanding of the local context and through a focus on fewer situations. However, justice has no “universal formula” and may require approaches beyond the ICC.

Chapter 6 assesses the reparative effects of the Court on victims, with an emphasis on countries under investigation (Uganda and Kenya). Indicators of reparative effects include: whether victims are able to participate meaningfully in ICC proceedings; and whether victims receive reparations or assistance, either through Court proceedings or through the Trust Fund for Victims. The chapter concludes that the reparative effect of the Court on victims in situation countries is minimal. Victim participation is under strain and should be reexamined. By definition, the legal proceedings become more exclusionary as they progress. The Trust Fund for Victims lacks sufficient resources to provide for proportional individual reparations, and will inevitably disappoint victims, in spite of its innovative, humanitarian approach on the ground. In any case, victims need more concrete solutions to improve their daily lives instead of waiting years or decades for Court decisions (which have included many acquittals).