ABSTRACT
On a crisp fall morning in October 2014, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta became the first sitting head of state to appear before the International Criminal Court (ICC). This chapter suggests that while the Court continues this growing juridification of international politics, its structural design wherein it is intended to supplement, not supplant, national jurisdictions. It also represents a departure from predecessor courts and tribunals. Complementarity's expansion from legal principle to policy tool underscores the way in which political objectives mediate the ICC's work. As Mark Drumbl has argued, 'Pressures emanating from dominant international norms can narrow the diversity of national and local accountability modalities'. From Uganda to Kenya to Libya, ICC interventions underscore how, in Simpson's words, 'concepts of the political remain perpetually in play'. Political objectives and calculations will thus always define the ICC's actions: where and when it intervenes, and where and when it does not.
