Why Can't an International Court Try Every Injustice

Start talking

Start talking: first response

A serious injustice occurs. Someone says, “An international court must be able to try it.” What questions come first?

Take it further

Which questions concern the harm, and which concern the institution?

Clip A

Watch for: What is the difference between recognising a universal right and making an institution able to enforce it?

Academic Vocabulary

inalienable

Held by virtue of being human rather than awarded as a discretionary privilege.

inalienable rights

Describing rights as inalienable is different from claiming that no government ever violates them.

universality

The principle that a right applies to every person.

the universality of rights

The universality of rights concerns who holds them, not whether enforcement is equally effective everywhere.

legal instrument

A formal document that expresses legal standards, commitments or rules.

an international legal instrument

We must identify the type of international legal instrument before assuming how it can be enforced.

enforcement

Action that gives practical effect to a rule or decision.

an enforcement mechanism

An enforcement mechanism needs authority and capacity as well as a statement of principle.

Original source

What are the universal human rights? , Benedetta Berti · TED-Ed · 00:06–04:21 · Source and credit

Clip A quiz: 6 questions

Choose one answer for each question, then read the feedback.

1. What does universality refer to in the account?

Who holds the rights, regardless of identity or birthplace.Whether every state enforces every right equally well.Whether all people agree about every interpretation.

2. Why distinguish rights from privileges?

Rights are awarded only after exceptional achievement.Their basis is human status rather than a favour granted to someone.Privileges and rights necessarily have identical foundations.

3. What role does the UDHR play in the historical account?

The first time any society considered justice or rights.A domestic criminal verdict against one named person.A major modern statement of shared human-rights principles.

4. Which range of rights is included?

Civil and political rights alongside social, economic and cultural rights.Only rights concerned with ownership of physical goods.Only rights concerning criminal trials.

5. What does the emphasis on interdependence suggest?

Enjoying one right automatically removes all the others.Different rights can support and depend on one another.One category is declared inherently unimportant.

6. Why can recognition coexist with continuing violations?

The existence of any violation proves nobody holds rights.Every international document is an identical court order.Practical enforcement and institutional powers are limited.

Grammar in a minute: Concession through despite

Despite is followed by a noun or -ing form. To follow it with a finite clause, use despite the fact that.

You say: Concede a principle’s importance and identify a practical limitation.

One possible response

Despite being an important standard, the declaration does not by itself identify a court that can hear every complaint.

Useful English

Useful English: speak and compare

Say your response before opening a model.

Recognition does not by itself establish…

Separate a principle from an institutional conclusion.

You say: Respond to the claim that naming a right automatically identifies a court.

One possible response

Recognition does not by itself establish which institution has jurisdiction or what remedy it can provide.

The question of entitlement is separate from…

Keep a normative and a procedural question distinct.

You say: Explain why weak enforcement does not mean a right is meaningless.

One possible response

The question of entitlement is separate from the question of how effectively institutions protect it. Weak enforcement is a problem to explain, not proof that the entitlement disappears.

Critical Thinking: 3 questions

Choose one question, then follow up, challenge and revise. Use the others for another angle.

Can a declaration matter if it cannot directly compel every state to comply?
Help me start
Consider standards, political argument, later law and institutional limits.
One possible response
Yes. It can provide a shared standard, shape later legal instruments and support public scrutiny. Those effects do not make it equivalent to a binding judgment. I would assess its role without assuming that symbolic authority is either sufficient or worthless.
Take it further: What evidence would show influence beyond ceremonial endorsement?
C2 challenge
Distinguish three types of practical influence without calling them all enforcement.
Does disagreement about a right’s application undermine the claim that it is universal?
Help me start
Separate the holder of a right from its interpretation in a difficult case.
One possible response
Not necessarily. People may accept equal entitlement while disagreeing about boundaries, conflicts or implementation. However, invoking universality should not end the debate about whose interpretation dominates. The challenge is to make those disagreements reasoned and inclusive without treating some people as outside the principle.
Take it further: When would disagreement concern the principle itself?
C2 challenge
Present the strongest distinction between interpretive disagreement and denial of equal entitlement.
What should a public explanation say when someone has a serious grievance but no obvious international remedy?
Help me start
Avoid both a false promise and the suggestion that the grievance has no value.
One possible response
It should acknowledge the alleged harm, explain the limits of the institution being discussed and identify what further information is needed to assess possible routes. We should not imply that the absence of one remedy settles either the facts or the moral importance of the complaint.
Take it further: How would you phrase that without sounding dismissive?
C2 challenge
Explain an institutional limit in accessible language while preserving uncertainty about other avenues.

Clip B

The International Criminal Court is one particular institution, not a general court for every human-rights complaint. Its official framework distinguishes jurisdiction, national proceedings, investigation and judicial decisions. As you watch the process, keep legal authority separate from the practical ability to enforce a decision.

Watch for: Which stages and limits stand between an allegation and a final judgment?

Academic Vocabulary

jurisdiction

A court’s legal authority to deal with a matter.

establish jurisdiction

The seriousness of a complaint does not by itself establish jurisdiction.

complementarity

The principle that the ICC complements national criminal systems rather than replacing genuine national action.

the principle of complementarity

The principle of complementarity makes the national proceedings relevant to the analysis.

admissibility

Whether a case meets the conditions for a court to proceed with it.

assess admissibility

A team must assess admissibility separately from deciding whether the allegation is true.

presumption of innocence

The principle that an accused person is treated as innocent unless guilt is proved according to law.

respect the presumption of innocence

A responsible headline should respect the presumption of innocence when reporting an arrest warrant.

Original source

The ICC Process · IntlCriminalCourt · 00:14–06:10 · Source and credit

Clip B quiz: 6 questions

Choose one answer for each question, then read the feedback.

1. In the explanation of arrest warrants, whose alleged criminal responsibility do the judges assess?

States as defendants in every dispute between countries.Individuals accused of crimes within its mandate.Any company accused of an ordinary contract breach.

2. What must be established beyond the seriousness of an allegation?

That public attention has reached a particular percentage.That every rights complaint belongs to the same court.That the relevant jurisdictional and other legal requirements are met.

3. What is the central idea of complementarity?

The ICC works alongside national systems rather than automatically replacing genuine proceedings.Any international allegation immediately cancels all national proceedings.National proceedings are irrelevant to admissibility.

4. Why distinguish the Prosecutor’s role from the judges’ role?

The Prosecutor’s allegation itself is the final verdict.Investigating and alleging a case is different from deciding judicial questions.Judges have no role before a sentence is announced.

5. What practical limit affects the execution of an arrest warrant?

A warrant itself physically brings the person to court.The ICC commands a worldwide police force of its own.The Court depends on cooperation to secure arrest and transfer.

6. What follows from the video’s distinction between reasonable grounds for a warrant and a final finding of guilt?

As facing allegations, with guilt still to be proved.As convicted solely because a warrant exists.As automatically acquitted because proceedings take time.

Grammar in a minute: Allegations about earlier events

Use is alleged to have + past participle to report a claim about past conduct. The perfect infinitive indicates time; alleged preserves the distinction between an accusation and an established fact.

You say: Report a fictional accusation without implying conviction.

One possible response

The commander is alleged to have authorised the conduct, but the charge has not yet been proved.

Useful English

Useful English: speak and compare

Say your response before opening a model.

Jurisdiction is a threshold question; it does not decide…

Separate authority from merits.

You say: A fictional commentator treats a jurisdiction decision as proof of guilt. Respond.

One possible response

Jurisdiction is a threshold question; it does not decide whether the allegations are true or whether the accused is guilty.

A finding about this forum does not mean…

Explain the limit of an institutional decision.

You say: A case cannot proceed in a particular court. Explain what does not follow.

One possible response

A finding about this forum does not mean that the alleged harm was acceptable or that every possible remedy has been ruled out.

Critical Thinking: 3 questions

Choose one question, then follow up, challenge and revise. Use the others for another angle.

Why should serious alleged wrongdoing not remove procedural safeguards?
Help me start
Consider reliable findings, legitimacy and the possibility of error.
One possible response
The seriousness of the allegation makes reliable procedure more important, not less. Safeguards help distinguish evidence from accusation and support the legitimacy of a decision. They can frustrate a demand for immediate certainty, but urgency alone cannot establish responsibility.
Take it further: How would you answer someone who sees safeguards as indifference to victims?
C2 challenge
Defend both the value of accountability and the need to prove an individual case.
Is a court ineffective whenever it cannot itself make an arrest?
Help me start
Distinguish legal decisions, cooperation and practical outcomes.
One possible response
Dependence on cooperation can be a serious limit, but it does not make every judicial act meaningless. A decision can shape responsibilities and future action while remaining unenforced. I would evaluate legal authority and practical effectiveness separately, then examine the relationship between them.
Take it further: What outcome would count as meaningful but incomplete progress?
C2 challenge
Explain why symbolic impact should neither replace nor be excluded from an effectiveness assessment.
How should genuine national proceedings affect an international court’s role?
Help me start
Use complementarity while avoiding a conclusion based only on the existence of a file.
One possible response
A genuine national process matters because the ICC is designed to complement national systems. But the mere announcement of an investigation should not settle whether the process is real and capable. We need to examine its substance without assuming that international action is always preferable.
Take it further: What distinction would you make between a formal announcement and genuine action?
C2 challenge
State a principle that respects national responsibility while recognising possible unwillingness or inability.

Mastery

Mastery: 6 questions

Original cases. Choose, then explain one answer aloud.

1. A fictional complaint concerns a serious workplace rights violation. Does seriousness alone make it an ICC case?

Yes; the ICC hears every human-rights complaint.No; workplace rights can never have any legal protection.No; the type of conduct and jurisdiction must be considered.

2. A court lacks jurisdiction over an alleged act. Which conclusion is unwarranted?

The alleged harm must therefore be morally acceptable.This court may be unable to proceed.Another route would need separate examination.

3. A national government announces an investigation but provides no information about its substance. What matters for complementarity?

The length of the announcement alone.Whether relevant national proceedings are genuine.An assumption that national courts never matter.

4. A warrant is issued and a newspaper calls the person convicted. What is the problem?

The report must be accurate because the allegation is serious.The warrant automatically requires an acquittal.The report confuses a procedural step with a finding of guilt.

5. An international standard is influential but difficult to enforce. Which assessment is strongest?

It may shape norms and later action while lacking an immediate remedy.It has automatically resolved every violation.It cannot have any value unless it commands its own police.

6. A fictional briefing conflates the ICC, the ICJ and a regional human-rights court. What should be corrected first?

Only the spelling of their abbreviations.The mandate, parties and jurisdiction of the institution being discussed.Nothing; all international courts have interchangeable powers.

Grammar in a minute: Distancing through reporting clauses

It has been alleged that reports a claim made up to the present. Keep the content clause in ordinary statement order and do not convert the allegation into an assertion of guilt.

You say: Give a concise public statement that separates allegation, jurisdiction and verdict.

One possible response

It has been alleged that serious crimes occurred, but the relevant court’s authority and the individual allegations still require legal assessment.

The public-information briefing

Integrated spoken task: decide and revise

A fictional civic forum receives two reports: an unfair denial of a public service, and alleged attacks on civilians during an armed conflict. It wants to announce that both are already ICC cases. No individual finding of guilt has been made.

Prepare an initial spoken correction and identify the legal questions that remain, without trying to determine the cases on incomplete facts.

Open only your own role. Share its information by speaking.

Rights advocate

You want the alleged harms recognised and possible accountability taken seriously.

Some affected people believe that “outside this court’s mandate” means their rights do not exist.

Court-information officer

You need precise language about mandate, process and allegations.

The forum has no information about the relevant territorial or nationality links, and national proceedings may already exist.

State an initial decision and its strongest reason.
Hear the other role, ask a challenging question and answer an objection.
Receive the new information, then explain a revised or deliberately retained decision.

New information: revise your decision

A domestic investigation into the conflict-related allegation has been announced, but nothing yet shows whether it genuinely addresses the relevant conduct.

Revise the briefing to explain why neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the announcement settles the international court’s role.

A strong response

Acknowledge the rights issue without assigning every complaint to the ICC.
Separate jurisdiction, genuine proceedings and proof of guilt.
Explain the new fact and remaining uncertainty in accessible language.

We should correct the claim that both reports are already ICC cases. The allegations may be serious, but the Court has a specific criminal mandate and legal requirements that we have not assessed. That limit does not mean the public-service complaint is unimportant or that no other route exists. For the conflict-related allegation, the domestic announcement makes genuine national proceedings relevant, but the announcement alone does not settle that question. We should report what is alleged, identify the information still needed and avoid describing any individual as convicted before a verdict.

Spoken exit

Your spoken exit

Explain why “a right exists”, “a court can hear the case” and “a person is guilty” are different claims.

One possible response

The first concerns entitlement, the second legal authority and admissibility, and the third a finding reached through evidence and procedure. None automatically establishes the others.

Your takeaway

One-minute takeaway

Choose one answer. Then explain your choice in one sentence aloud.

Why Can't an International Court Try Every Injustice?

Start talking

Clip A

Useful English

Clip B

Useful English

Mastery

The public-information briefing

Spoken exit

Your takeaway

Lesson aims

Practice audio