Chapter 2 discusses “systemic effect,” which refers to the impact of the Rome Statute and the ICC on domestic legal systems. The systemic effect of the Rome Statute is presumed to be mainly through the application of the “complementarity” framework. The chapter argues that complementarity is not the main avenue to systemic effect, mainly because it is a court-centric notion that has often resulted in an adversarial relationship between the Court and national authorities. This has meant that at times the Court and national authorities compete for cases, as the national authorities seek to avoid the Court’s intervention. Instead of true complementarity, it may be more accurate to speak of “parallelism”: If national authorities are not able to arrest suspects (Uganda) or investigate (Afghanistan), neither is the ICC. Complementarity does not address wider rule of law challenges, and in some cases, it allows for unfair trials on the domestic level, as was the case in Libya. The flaws of complementarity may inhibit the Court’s impact.

Chapter 3 further expands on systemic effect and argues that impact of the Rome Statute on domestic legal systems is better described as “internalization.” Internalization is the process whereby states demonstrate compliance with international law. The chapter examines internalization in Afghanistan, Colombia, Libya, and Uganda. Indicators of systemic effect, in the form of internalization, include implementation of domestic laws covering the Rome Statute crimes; the establishment of new or specialized investigative units or chambers to investigate or prosecute Rome Statute crime; or (genuine) national proceedings for Rome Statute crimes. The chapter concludes that “internalization” is taking place in all the countries under study. Laws have been amended, and new institutions established. National proceedings took place in all four countries. However, domestic proceedings in Colombia and Uganda demonstrate that it can be complex to assess for “genuineness.” In fact, most domestic proceedings are taking place in Colombia, a country with a robust legal system. This may mean that the Court has the most impact where it is needed the least.