The International Criminal Court and Artificial Intelligence: Case Study and Global Legal Challenges

The International Criminal Court is the beginning of international criminal jurisdiction for certain serious crimes. The Court is a new institution in international law, different from those of the same type created ad hoc for certain countries. Although the Rome Statute was adopted on 18 July 1998, it entered into force on 1 July 2002 and only began operating in March 2003. In practical terms, the ICC is the main forum for international criminal justice, with the role of trying the most serious crimes affecting the international community as a whole: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. In a global context marked by complex armed conflicts, transnational crimes and challenges to the protection of fundamental rights, the ICC faces constant legal difficulties in exercising its jurisdiction, collecting evidence, protecting witnesses and ensuring fair trials. Specifically, the issue of the relationship between international criminal law, state sovereignty and the imperatives of protecting fundamental rights is becoming increasingly relevant in the face of contemporary armed conflicts. Thus, these challenges must be analysed in light of the Court's fruitful case law, supplemented by the study of a relevant case that illustrates the tensions between international criminal law, geopolitical realities and new investigative technologies. At the end of the analysis, in addition to these classic obstacles, technological developments introduce new dimensions to the investigation of international crimes. The use of Artificial Intelligence in the analysis of digital evidence, in the identification of perpetrators or in the monitoring of armed conflicts opens up both opportunities and legal risks that are difficult to anticipate. In the objective dimension of reality, it is necessary to reflect on how the Court can adapt its instruments and procedures to respond responsibly to emerging challenges without compromising standards for the protection of fundamental rights.