The rise of Islamic State (IS) has fundamentally altered the conception of terrorism, a development which international criminal law is arguably unprepared for. Given the scale and gravity of the group’s crimes, questions abound as to how those responsible will be held accountable. In the absence of significant domestic prosecutions and short of the establishment of a dedicated accountability mechanism, the International Criminal Court (ICC) stands as the forum of last resort in which IS members could stand trial. Such a proposition is not without significant challenges, however. This article addresses some key issues facing any potential prosecutions from the perspective of: (i) jurisdiction; (ii) applicable crimes; and (iii) modes of liability. First, as Syria, Iraq, and Libya are not States Parties to the Rome Statute, the available avenues for asserting jurisdiction will be assessed, namely: a Security Council referral; jurisdiction over so called ‘foreign fighters’ who are State Party nationals; and jurisdiction over attacks on the territory of a State Party and whether they could be considered part of a broader series of criminal acts in IS held territory. Second, as there is no crime of terrorism in the Rome Statute, the question of prosecuting acts encapsulated in a systematic campaign of terror through existing provisions will be assessed. Third, the regime of accountability at the ICC will be analysed in light of IS’s purported structure and the crimes with which it stands accused. Focus will be directed to those responsible for the propagation of genocidal propaganda and individuals who provide aid or assistance to IS which contributes to its crimes. These questions are far from theoretical. The UN has designated IS a threat to international peace and security. There follows an expectation that international criminal law should play a role in tackling one of the major criminal concerns of our time and ensure that impunity for those responsible for IS’s atrocities is avoided.

中文翻译：

---

起诉国际关注的犯罪：国际刑事法院的伊斯兰国？

伊斯兰国（IS）的崛起从根本上改变了恐怖主义的概念，这一发展可以说是国际刑法没有准备的。考虑到该集团犯罪的规模和严重性，关于如何对肇事者追究责任的问题不胜枚举。在缺乏重大的国内起诉且缺乏建立专门的问责机制的情况下，国际刑事法院（ICC）是情报机构成员可以接受审判的不得已的论坛。但是，这种主张并非没有重大挑战。本文从以下方面解决了可能面临的任何起诉所面临的一些关键问题：（i）管辖权；（ii）适用的罪行；（iii）责任模式。首先，由于叙利亚，伊拉克和利比亚不是《罗马规约》的缔约国，将评估主张管辖权的可用途径，即：将安全理事会移交给安理会；对属于缔约国国民的所谓“外国战士”的管辖权；以及对在缔约国领土上的袭击的管辖权，以及是否可以将其视为在IS占领领土内一系列更广泛的犯罪行为的一部分。第二，由于《罗马规约》没有恐怖主义罪，因此将评估通过现有规定起诉系统化的恐怖运动中所包含的行为的问题。第三，将根据情报机构的既定结构及其所指控的罪行来分析国际刑事法院的问责制度。重点将放在负责种族灭绝宣传传播的人和向国际情报组织提供协助或协助而助长其罪行的个人身上。这些问题离理论还很远。联合国已指定IS对国际和平与安全构成威胁。随之而来的期望是，国际刑法应在解决当今时代的主要刑事关切之一中发挥作用，并确保避免对负责IS暴行的人逍遥法外。