Crimes Against Humanity: Legal Framework and Enforcement Challenges

Abstract 

Crimes against humanity, which include systematic persecution, enslavement, torture, and genocide, are among the most serious human rights crimes^[1]. Even while international law recognizes them, it is nonetheless very difficult to enforce them. The legal framework that governs crimes against humanity is examined in this article, including treaties, customary international law, and the jurisdiction of national and international courts. It also examines the obstacles in enforcing the law, including evidence issues, jurisdictional restrictions, and political meddling. The article aims to illustrate the advancements and challenges that still exist in the prosecution and prevention of crimes against humanity by examining significant cases and contemporary legal systems.

Introduction 

International crimes that shock people’s consciences are categorized as crimes against humanity. Because crimes against humanity can happen in both peace and war, they have a wider scope and a more devastating impact than war crimes, which are committed during armed conflict. Following World War II, the idea was given legal recognition, especially at the Nuremberg Trials. Since then, it has changed because of numerous international laws and court rulings. A foundation for prosecution is provided by international legal treaties like the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), but enforcement is still uneven. Accountability frequently suffers from a lack of political will, states’ unwillingness to cooperate, and difficulties obtaining evidence. In addition to offering a critical evaluation of present international initiatives and suggesting strategies for more effective legal redress, this article explores the history, legal framework, and enforcement difficulties surrounding crimes against humanity.

Legal Framework Governing Crimes Against Humanity

1. Definition, Evolution, and the Role of the Nuremberg Trials: The Nuremberg Trials, which took place after World War II, were a turning point in international criminal law because they were the first to codify crimes against humanity. Key Nazi officials were put on trial in these trials, which also established the idea that anybody, even rulers of the state, might be held responsible for such atrocities. The term “atrocities” was once used to refer to crimes performed during times of war, but it has now been broadened to encompass crimes perpetrated during times of peace. A thorough definition can be found in the ICC’s Rome Statute, which lists crimes against humanity as including murder, extermination, enslavement, and persecution when they are carried out as a component of a large-scale or coordinated assault on civilians. By reaffirming that these offenses could be tried regardless of whether they took place during an armed war, the Nuremberg Trials established precedents for the law. These principles have been reinforced over time by customary international law, which guarantees responsibility even in the absence of express treaties and opens the door for contemporary international legal documents like the Rome Statute.
2. International Treaties and Conventions: The legal foundation for the prosecution of crimes against humanity is provided by several international treaties and agreements. The most extensive legal document that defines and establishes jurisdiction over these offenses is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)^[2]. While the Geneva Conventions concentrate on protections during armed conflict, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) offers a more comprehensive framework for human rights. When combined, these tools provide a legal framework that protects victims and holds offenders responsible. However, because some governments are reluctant to sign these treaties and work with international agencies, enforcement issues continue to exist.
3. Customary International Law and Universal Jurisdiction: Crimes against humanity are recognized by customary international law as transgressions that can be enforced without a particular treaty. Regardless of the location of the offense or the nationality of the offender, states have the authority to pursue certain crimes under universal jurisdiction. As demonstrated by instances such as the prosecution of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, this principle has made it possible for national courts to bring criminal charges against persons for crimes committed outside of their boundaries. Although universal jurisdiction increases accountability, political concerns and diplomatic difficulties frequently make it difficult to implement.
4. National Laws and Domestic Prosecution: Although international tribunals are important, crimes against humanity can also be prosecuted by national legal systems. These offenses are now covered by domestic laws in several nations, enabling nationwide prosecutions. The success of domestic enforcement is demonstrated by Germany’s prosecution of Syrian war criminals and Argentina’s trials for crimes committed under its military dictatorship. Stronger international collaboration is necessary to close enforcement gaps, nevertheless, as obstacles including political meddling, a lack of funding, and conflicting legal frameworks frequently impede local prosecutions.

International Judicial Mechanism 

1. International Criminal Courts: Established in 2002 by the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court (ICC) brings charges of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It gives global justice a permanent legal framework, unlike ad hoc tribunals. Even while it lacks enforcement authority and is subject to political prejudice and non-cooperation, the ICC is nonetheless essential for holding international leaders accountable and preventing impunity.
2. International Criminal Tribunals: The ICTY (1993) and ICTR (1994) were set up by the UN to try crimes related to the Rwandan Genocide and the Yugoslav Wars. While the ICTR established precedents on command responsibility and sexual abuse, the ICTY found leaders like Slobodan Milošević guilty. The Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT), which handles pending cases and appeals, carries on its legacy.
3. Special Hybrid Courts and Domestic Tribunals: To pursue crimes against humanity, hybrid courts such as the ECCC and Special Court for Sierra Leone combine national and international law. Charles Taylor was found guilty by the Special Court, while Khmer Rouge commanders were tried by the ECCC. Although they have difficulties with funding, politics, and enforcement, these courts strengthen local legitimacy. Nevertheless, in post-conflict nations, they continue to be essential for justice.

Enforcement Challenges

1. Political Influence and State Sovereignty: Sovereign states frequently oppose and meddle politically with the enforcement of crimes against humanity^[3]. For political reasons or to protect state leaders from prosecution, governments may decline to participate with international courts. Some governments use diplomatic ploys to protect offenders, putting their interests ahead of international justice. The efficacy of international legal procedures may be hampered by the idea of state sovereignty, which gives countries authority over their domestic affairs. Nations that are not signatories to the Rome Statute, like China, Russia, and the United States, frequently object to the ICC having jurisdiction over their citizens. Furthermore, selective enforcement in which strong states avoid responsibility while weaker countries are prosecuted can result from political coalitions. Prevention measures are weakened by this selective application, which also calls into question the validity of international justice.
2. Jurisdictional Limitations and Non-Cooperation: The prosecution of crimes against humanity is severely hampered by jurisdictional limitations. Unless the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) refers a case, the International Criminal Court (ICC) can only have jurisdiction over crimes committed by citizens of a state party or on their territory. This restriction makes it possible for offenders in non-signatory states to avoid punishment. Since international tribunals depend on governments to apprehend suspects, produce evidence, and uphold rulings, state non-cooperation makes these problems worse. Legal proceedings are frequently delayed by nations’ refusals to allow investigations within their borders or extradite accused individuals. The efficacy of legal frameworks is further undermined by the absence of an international enforcement mechanism to force state compliance.
3. Evidentiary and Procedure Hurdles: There must be a lot of evidence to support a crime against humanity charge, but getting accurate documentation is difficult. Access to witnesses and forensic evidence is severely limited in conflict zones and under repressive regimes, where these crimes frequently take place. Survivors and witnesses may be reluctant to testify out of fear of reprisals. Additionally, to avoid prosecution, criminals may purposefully destroy evidence. A high burden of proof is necessary to ensure fair trials in international tribunals, which are subject to stringent procedural requirements. However, obtaining reliable evidence like satellite photos, intercepted conversations, and forensic reports may be difficult, which can cause drawn-out investigations and delays in the administration of justice. Proceedings are made more difficult by linguistic obstacles, cultural disparities, and a lack of resources for investigations. Overcoming these hurdles and guaranteeing successful convictions requires the creation of specialist forensic teams, strengthening witness protection initiatives, and fostering greater international collaboration in the gathering of evidence.
4. Lack of Resources and Institutional Constraints: Significant financial, human, and technical resources are needed for the successful prosecution of crimes against humanity; nevertheless, many domestic and international tribunals are severely constrained in their ability to do so. For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) depends on state party funding, which frequently isn’t enough to carry out investigations, safeguard witnesses, and hold trials. Conflict-affected nations may not have the independence, resources, or experience necessary to handle complicated international crimes through their domestic legal systems. Further impeding the court process are bureaucratic bottlenecks, insufficient forensic skills, and a lack of training for legal experts. International criminal justice systems’ efficacy is further strained by drawn-out trials, expensive operations, and weak enforcement capacities. Increased funding, capacity-building programs, and creative tools like hybrid courts to support global efforts are all necessary to address these problems. Strengthening accountability and providing justice for victims of crimes against humanity require enough funding and institutional assistance.

Reforms 

1. Strengthening State Cooperation and Legal Obligations: Crimes against humanity cannot be prosecuted when states do not cooperate. To strengthen ICC jurisdiction, countries should be urged to adopt the Rome Statute and compliance with international courts should be required rather than optional. To ensure accountability even in circumstances when governments are hesitant to act, the UN Security Council should aggressively refer cases when national tribunals are unable to do so.
2. Expanding Universal Jurisdiction and Domestic Prosecution: To stop criminals from escaping punishment, universal jurisdiction gives national courts the authority to try cases involving crimes against humanity. It can improve enforcement by improving domestic legal institutions and broadening its applicability through financial and technical assistance. In addition to ensuring that justice is served more quickly and efficiently, encouraging nations to bring these crimes to justice locally lessens the need for international tribunals.
3. Reforming the ICC and Ensuring Impartiality in International Justice: The ICC has come under criticism for its sluggish operations, selective prosecutions, and lax enforcement. A dedicated enforcement agency should be established to increase efficiency, and case backlogs should be decreased through better funding and processes. To ensure that powerful states are held accountable, international justice must be applied consistently, which includes removing political bias. Localized justice, legitimacy, and impartiality can all be improved in post-conflict areas by establishing independent review panels and encouraging hybrid courts.

Case – Slobodan Milošević’s Trial (ICTY, Yugoslavia)

Facts:

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)^[4] indicted former Serbian and Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milošević with crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide for his involvement in the Yugoslav Wars (1991–2001). Bosniaks, Croats, and Kosovo Albanians were accused of ethnic cleansing. He became the first sitting head of state to be charged with such offenses when his trial started in 2002.

Issues: 

Is it possible to hold a sitting head of state responsible for crimes against humanity?

Was there enough proof to establish Milošević’s role in ethnic cleansing and genocide?

Without tools for direct enforcement, how might international law ensure accountability?

Judgement: 

The trial of Milošević established a precedent for the prosecution of political figures. However, the trial ended without a verdict because to procedural hold-ups and his passing in 2006. Nevertheless, the case influenced subsequent international prosecutions by reaffirming the rule that state leaders cannot claim immunity for crimes against humanity.

Conclusion

Some of the most serious human rights breaches are crimes against humanity, which calls for strong legal frameworks and efficient enforcement systems to guarantee justice. Prosecution of these crimes has advanced significantly thanks to the Rome Statute, the ICC, and other international legal tools. Major issues still exist, nevertheless, such as lack of state cooperation, jurisdictional disputes, political meddling, and evidential difficulties. Entire reforms are required to improve accountability. Enforcement can be improved by extending universal jurisdiction, strengthening evidence-gathering procedures, guaranteeing state cooperation, and reorganizing judicial organizations such as the ICC. Eliminating impunity and defending human rights everywhere requires a shared international commitment to justice, legal reforms, and activism.

References

[1] Attorneys Media, ‘Understanding Crimes Against Humanity: Legal Definition and Global Impact’(Attorneys Media, 2025) Understanding Crimes Against Humanity: Legal Definitions and Global Impact /–  accessed 10 February 2025.

[2] Drishti Judiciary, ‘ Crimes Against Humanity Treaty’ ( Drishti Judiciary, 2025) Crimes Against Humanity Treaty  accessed 11 february 2025.

[3] Legal Service India, ‘The Imperative of Accountability for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity:

Challenges and Prospects in International Law (Legal Service India,2025) The Imperative Of Accountability For War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity: Challenges And Prospects In International Law | Legal Service India – Law Articles – Legal Resources accessed 11 February 2025.

[4] Prosecutor v Slobodan Milošević’s (Trial Judgement) ICTY-99-37-PT