Where is the IBA ICC Moot held?

The IBA ICC Moot is held in The Hague, NLD.

What is the eligibility level for participants in the IBA ICC Moot?

The competition is open to college-level participants.

What is the format of the IBA ICC Moot?

The IBA ICC Moot is a moot court competition, involving simulated court proceedings.

When does the IBA ICC Moot take place?

The IBA ICC Moot typically takes place in the summer, with the event beginning in June.

IBA ICC Moot 2026

Jun 12, 2026The Hague, NetherlandsIn-person

Registration open

The IBA ICC Moot is a collegiate-level competition held in The Hague, NLD, focusing on the intricacies of international criminal law. Participants engage in simulated court proceedings, arguing complex legal issues before panels of judges. This event provides a practical platform for students to apply their knowledge of the Rome Statute and related legal frameworks, fostering a deeper understanding of the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction and operations. The moot court challenges participants to analyze hypothetical cases, develop legal arguments, and present them orally and in writing. It is designed to enhance research, analytical, and advocacy skills, preparing future legal professionals for careers in international law and diplomacy. The competition's setting in The Hague, NLD, a hub for international justice, further enriches the experience for all involved.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 5 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

Netherlands

Host nation and a strong proponent of international criminal justice.

Role in topic

As the host country for the International Criminal Court and the IBA ICC Moot in The Hague, NLD, the Netherlands plays a central role in promoting international criminal justice. Its legal and political infrastructure supports the functioning of these institutions and competitions, reflecting a long-standing commitment to the rule of law and accountability for grave international crimes.

United States

Non-signatory to the Rome Statute with a complex relationship with the ICC.

Role in topic

The United States, while not a state party to the <glossary-link slug="rome-statute">Rome Statute</glossary-link>, has a significant influence on international criminal law. Its perspective often involves debates around national sovereignty versus international jurisdiction, particularly concerning the <glossary-link slug="extraterritorial-application-of-criminal-law">Extraterritorial Application of Criminal Law</glossary-link> and the role of the ICC in prosecuting its citizens or allies. This stance often leads to discussions on the limits and reach of international legal bodies.

Russia

Withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute, critical of the ICC's jurisdiction.

Role in topic

Russia's relationship with the International Criminal Court has been contentious, particularly after withdrawing its signature from the <glossary-link slug="rome-statute">Rome Statute</glossary-link>. Its perspective often emphasizes state sovereignty and questions the legitimacy or impartiality of the ICC's investigations, especially in cases involving its own actions or those of its allies. This provides a crucial counterpoint in discussions on international criminal justice.

Ukraine

Accepted ICC jurisdiction, actively seeking accountability for alleged crimes.

Role in topic

Ukraine, having accepted the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction, is a key actor in the pursuit of accountability for alleged international crimes committed within its territory. Its active engagement with the ICC, including providing evidence and cooperating with investigations, highlights the practical application of international criminal law in conflict zones and the challenges of achieving justice in such contexts.

Palestine

State party to the Rome Statute, subject of an ongoing ICC investigation.

Role in topic

Palestine's status as a state party to the <glossary-link slug="rome-statute">Rome Statute</glossary-link> and the ongoing <glossary-link slug="icc-palestine-investigation">ICC Palestine Investigation</glossary-link> place it at the center of complex legal and political debates. Its perspective underscores the challenges of applying international criminal law in situations of prolonged conflict and occupation, raising questions about jurisdiction, evidence, and the impact of international legal processes on political outcomes.

Topics & background

The history behind each committee topic and the states that shape it.

International Criminal Law: Origins, Scope and Contemporary Challenges

International criminal law (ICL) emerged from the post-World War II Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, which for the first time held individuals — not just states — criminally responsible under international law for atrocity crimes. The field lay largely dormant during the Cold War and was revived in the 1990s with the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), followed by hybrid courts for Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Lebanon and Kosovo. These institutions consolidated definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and developed modes of liability such as joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility. The adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 and the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002 created the first permanent international criminal jurisdiction, complementary to national courts. ICL today rests on a layered architecture: the ICC, residual mechanisms of the ad hoc tribunals, hybrid courts, universal jurisdiction prosecutions in domestic systems (notably in Germany, France and Argentina), and investigative mechanisms such as the IIIM for Syria and UNITAD for Iraq. The field faces structural strain. Selective enforcement, the non-cooperation of major powers, the politicisation of arrest warrants, and tensions between peace negotiations and accountability all test its legitimacy. Debates over the crime of aggression, corporate liability, environmental harm ("ecocide"), and the reach of universal jurisdiction define the current frontier of ICL.

Key players

The Rome Statute: Foundations, Amendments and Contested Universality

The Rome Statute, adopted on 17 July 1998 at a UN diplomatic conference and entering into force on 1 July 2002, is the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court. It codifies four core crimes — genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression — and establishes the Court's jurisdictional triggers: state referral, Security Council referral, and the Prosecutor's proprio motu authority. Central to its design is the principle of complementarity, under which the ICC acts only where national jurisdictions are unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute. The Statute has been amended notably through the 2010 Kampala amendments, which activated jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in 2018 under restrictive conditions, and through successive expansions of war crimes provisions, including the use of certain weapons in non-international armed conflicts and, in 2017, intentional starvation as a war crime in non-international conflicts. The Assembly of States Parties governs the Court and has navigated reform debates following the 2020 Independent Expert Review. Universality remains elusive. Major states including the United States, China, India, Russia and Israel are not parties; Burundi withdrew in 2017 and the Philippines in 2019, though investigations into pre-withdrawal conduct continued. Recurrent controversies — head-of-state immunities (Al-Bashir, Putin), Article 98 agreements, Security Council deferrals, and the politics of situation selection — continue to shape both the Statute's interpretation and its perceived legitimacy.

Key players

ICC Proceedings: Procedure, Evidence and the Practice of the Court

ICC proceedings are governed by the Rome Statute, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Elements of Crimes, and the Regulations of the Court. A case typically progresses through preliminary examination by the Office of the Prosecutor, formal investigation upon authorisation (where required) by a Pre-Trial Chamber, issuance of warrants or summonses, confirmation of charges, trial before a Trial Chamber, and appellate review. The system blends common-law adversarial features with civil-law inquisitorial elements, and uniquely allows victims to participate independently of the prosecution and to seek reparations through the Trust Fund for Victims. Landmark proceedings have shaped the Court's procedural identity: Lubanga (first conviction, child soldiers, 2012), Katanga, Bemba (later acquitted on appeal in 2018, prompting debate over command responsibility), Ntaganda (sexual violence against own forces), Ongwen (LRA commander, duress defence), and Al Mahdi (cultural heritage destruction). Investigations span Uganda, DRC, CAR, Darfur, Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Georgia, Burundi, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Afghanistan, Palestine, the Philippines, Venezuela, Ukraine, and most recently the Situation in the State of Palestine, in which warrants were issued in 2024. Current procedural debates center on cooperation and arrest (the Court has no police force and depends on states), in absentia confirmation hearings, the standard for authorising investigations, disclosure obligations and witness protection, the use of digital and open-source evidence, head-of-state immunities under Article 27 versus Article 98, and the scope of victim participation. Sanctions imposed by some non-party states on Court officials, and challenges to jurisdiction by affected states, continue to test the resilience of ICC proceedings.

Key players