The International Criminal Court (ICC) was founded, in part, on the expectation that prosecutions can contribute to preventing atrocity crimes. This expectation is rooted mostly in the criminological theory of deterrence, which predicts that prosecutions will increase the costs of crime to perpetrators – so they won’t commit them. But does the ICC actually prevent atrocities? The ICC lacks enforcement capacity; it might therefore be unable to generate the fear of the law necessary for deterrence. More alarmingly, prosecutions might generate perverse incentives for leaders to escalate violence to avoid arrest.
I tested these claims in the context of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where the ICC opened an investigation in June 2004, two months after the Congolese government asked the ICC to intervene. Amidst continuing violence in eastern DRC, the ICC issued arrest warrants for six rebel leaders. Five of these men have now appeared before the Court, resulting so far in three verdicts on the DRC cases: one conviction, one acquittal, and a mixed verdict.
To test for the effects of these prosecutions and other ICC actions, I interviewed over 50 current and former members of various armed groups whose leaders were indicted by the ICC, plus around 50 government officials, civil society activists and media. I also consulted a wide range of secondary sources, including reports of the UN Group of Experts on DRC and published academic studies (particularly the Usalama Project).
