On 17 July 1998, the international community came together to make history. Tired of watching war crimes go unpunished, 120 states decided that ending impunity and bringing the perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice was an essential mandate which needed a permanent home.

The result was the adoption of the Rome Statute which forms the legal basis for the world's first and only permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). Since then, 113 states have ratified the Rome Statute, the doors of the ICC at The Hague are well and truly open, and the international legal framework has never been stronger.

But despite the international community's best intentions, doubts still linger as to the ICC's efficacy and purpose.

The Kampala Review

International lawyer Dr Helen Durham, who currently works as the strategic adviser for International Law and Special Projects at the Australian Red Cross, was part of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delegation in Rome in 1998, charged with ensuring the views of the ICRC were heard throughout the statutory negotiations.

Twelve years later, and eight years since the Rome Statute came into force, Durham has watched with curiosity the outcome of a recent review of the ICC, held in Kampala, Uganda.

According to Durham, the review allowed parties to the statute to gauge how the ICC is tracking and to also make some adjustments.

"The review was an opportunity to do a pulse check on the ICC ... but also to make some amendments to the Rome Statute," she says. Two significant changes were adopted, including a long-awaited definition for the crime of aggression - something which, until now, had proved impossible.

"It has taken a very long time to get to a definition of a crime of aggression. From an intellectual point of view, the crime of aggression has made many states a bit uncertain and nervous, because it goes to the heart of the security of the state," says Durham.

"On the other hand, many countries argue that if you can actually make going to war in itself a crime, then you don't have to be playing catch up afterwards by trying to prosecute [for war crimes]."

The second major development was the banning of certain weapons - which are already prohibited in international armed conflicts (including poisonous gases and expanding bullets) - in armed conflicts which are not international in nature.

"It was a really important step for the international community to reflect that, whilst there are still different legal frameworks for international and non-international armed conflicts, it is really important, if we are to reduce suffering, that these laws apply in both [jurisdictions]," says Durham.

A rocky road

The Kampala Review exposed varied and wide-ranging opinions about the success or otherwise of the ICC thus far, with questions being raised as to its scope and efficiency.

But Durham questions many of the criticisms and the basis on which they are formed.

"In analysing whether the ICC has been successful or not, you really have to look at what it is trying to do, the difficulties of the political context in which it is working, and the fact that it is still really early on in the journey of the ICC," she says.

"It opens its doors with a lot of heavy expectations, so there are a range of views about whether those expectations have been met."

One of the primary criticisms of the ICC is that it's too focused on Africa, a criticism backed up by the fact that all the cases currently before it involve defendants from the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Uganda and the Sudan. But Durham is quick to dispel claims that the ICC is merely a tool for the west to prosecute accused African war lords.

"If you actually look at how these cases have come to court, most of them (excepting the case against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir of Darfur) have come through self-references, so the state itself has referred it to the court," she says.

Another major criticism of the ICC is the time it takes to effect a prosecution. For instance, since the ICC's first trial commenced in 2006, not one case has been successfully tried and concluded.

Again, Durham is quick to defend the ICC. "A lot of people get frustrated with how long it takes to prosecute war criminals, but you don't want to turn into what you are prosecuting," she says.

"Ruthless regimes get in and quickly execute people, but lawyers understand the crucial importance of good and fair procedures in ensuring the legitimacy of institutions. We want this to be really high quality justice. We want to be proud of the justice and if that takes longer, so be it."

Lighting the way

Despite what Durham describes as "teething problems" and the inherent challenges of operating in a highly politicised global context, she is cautiously optimistic that the ICC is having a positive impact and is sending a strong message to perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

"The ICC - by its very existence - makes those who commit atrocities, or who are thinking about committing atrocities, a little uneasy," she says. "As someone who lectures a lot to the military and arms bearers in Australia and the region, to be able to say that I can no longer guarantee they won't be prosecuted is a huge shift. Years ago, I would have had to say there was a high likelihood that they would not be prosecuted."

But perhaps the ICC's crowning achievement thus far, says Durham, is the effect its implementation has had on the creation of domestic laws around the world.

"The main goal the ICC has achieved is encouraging countries to create domestic laws, so they are in a position to prosecute those who are accused of grave crimes. The last decade has seen an explosion in the ways countries have decided to deal with these issues. There are a lot more prosecutions. For a long time, the issue was not even raised," she says. "It is a very exciting time for those who are interested in international justice and those interested in how we grapple with these things through the clunky mechanism that is the law."

But the overarching message from Durham is clear: be patient.

"We can only move in baby steps, because if we try and leap too far forward, we usually fall over," she says.

"Eleanor Roosevelt once said, 'It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness'. The ICC represents the lighting of a candle, and the more candles people light, the more light there is. International laws are not perfect ... and politics plays a huge part. If we don't think that, then we are naïve and we are going to fail at everything we do in the international community. It is a really long journey ... we have to have a very long view."