Who Enforces War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity?

In this second installment of our series on international criminal accountability, Nate Charles addresses the most fundamental question in atrocity law: Who is actually responsible for enforcing war crimes and crimes against humanity?

It’s a harder question than it sounds. As Nate explains, everything turns on the doctrine of state sovereignty—the principle that gives each nation supreme authority within its borders and ensures that no state is legally subordinate to another. That doctrine is not abstract philosophy; it is the architecture that determines why no world government, no global police force, and no universal prosecutor exists to handle violations of the laws of armed conflict.

Under the Geneva Conventions, sovereign states bear primary responsibility for investigating, prosecuting, or extraditing individuals who commit grave breaches, and they must regulate their own forces in good faith. The system assumes that states will police themselves—an assumption that often fails in practice.

Nate also examines the limited and highly conditional role of the International Criminal Court, which can prosecute both war crimes and crimes against humanity only when jurisdiction exists and when states are unwilling or unable to act. He also explains the distinct legal authority behind earlier ad hoc tribunals such as the ICTY and ICTR—institutions created by the UN Security Council to handle specific outbreaks of mass atrocity.

This episode lays the groundwork for Part III, which will address why the United States—despite its global power—refuses to participate in the ICC.

Subscribe for clear, unsentimental analysis on war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the modern international system that struggles to regulate them.

Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe