Abstract
This thesis seeks to determine whether and through what means the International Criminal Court could be used as a way to combat terrorism globally. Prominent geopolitical norms, namely the concept of state sovereignty, hinder the ICC in its pursuit of international justice. An analysis of the difficulties in defining terrorism reveal that the diverse interpretations of the term lead to issues at the international level, manifesting as inadequate and disjointed responses to terrorism. Due to the political nature of terrorism, establishing it as one of the crimes under the court’s jurisdiction could be harmful to the impartial nature of the court. However, a discussion of the similarities between acts of terrorism and crimes already under the jurisdiction of the court reveal the potential for terrorists to be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. A closer look at the structure of the court highlights serious problems that decrease the effectiveness of the court and impact its ability to deliver justice in cases where terrorists might be prosecuted. An exploration of narco-terrorism in Mexico and ISIS-related activities in Bangladesh offer insights into the potential for ICC intervention. Even if the ICC could claim jurisdiction over cases of terrorism, the court and its member states must overcome serious barriers that impede its ability to become a truly effective tool in the international fight against terrorism.