Founding Editorial Why International Criminal Law Needs a More Global Scholarly Conversation

Introduction

International criminal law (ICL) aspires to universality, yet the production of knowledge about the field remains concentrated within a relatively limited number of intellectual centres. This Editorial advances a simple claim: the legitimacy and long-term vitality of ICL depend not only on the universality of its substantive norms and institutional architecture, but also on the inclusiveness and diversity of the scholarly communities that interpret, critique, and develop those norms.

ICL presents itself as a legal project directed at humanity as a whole. Its foundational prohibitions—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression—are not framed as violations of the interests of particular states but as offences that concern the international community. From Nuremberg to the Rome Statute, the field has been justified through reference to values such as human dignity, international peace, and accountability for mass atrocities. It is therefore among the most ambitious projects of modern international law, seeking to establish standards of responsibility that transcend legal systems and political traditions. Yet this universal aspiration coexists with a more complex reality.

 The academic conversations that shape doctrine, influence interpretation, and frame institutional debates remain largely structured through a limited number of institutional and geographical centres. This structural imbalance raises an important question: can a field that claims universal authority sustain its legitimacy if the production of knowledge about it is not itself genuinely universal? The issue is not that ICL lacks diversity of thought, nor that scholars from different regions have not made important contributions. Rather, the concern is structural. It relates to the conditions under which legal knowledge is produced, circulated, and validated.

Universality Beyond Norms

The evolution of ICL has often been described as a gradual expansion of universality. The Nuremberg Tribunal articulated the idea that certain crimes are committed against humanity itself. Subsequent treaties and institutions—including the Genocide Convention, the Geneva Conventions, the ad hoc tribunals, hybrid courts, and ultimately the International Criminal Court (ICC)—have reinforced the view that some forms of violence generate responsibility beyond domestic legal orders. However, universality in ICL cannot be reduced to the scope of its norms or the reach of its institutions. A legal system that claims universal authority must also reflect universality in the processes through which its meaning is constructed. Norms do not interpret themselves. Their content and significance are shaped through scholarly argumentation, judicial reasoning, and institutional practice. This point is particularly important in a field that addresses deeply contextualised phenomena. Questions of accountability, victimhood, punishment, reconciliation, and responsibility are not experienced uniformly across societies. They are filtered through different legal traditions, historical experiences, and political contexts. Universality should therefore not be understood as the elimination of diversity but as the capacity of a legal system to incorporate diverse perspectives within a coherent normative framework. From this perspective, the legitimacy and intellectual vitality of ICL depend as much on epistemic inclusiveness as on normative reach.

The Geography of Knowledge Production

Despite its universal aspirations, the production of knowledge in ICL remains geographically concentrated. A significant proportion of influential institutions, academic journals, research centres, and conferences are located in Europe and North America. The ICC itself is based in The Hague, and many of the institutions that historically shaped the field emerged from European and North American academic and political contexts. These centres have produced scholarship of exceptional quality and remain indispensable to the discipline. The issue is not the existence of such centres of excellence. Rather, it is whether the broader structure of scholarly production adequately reflects the global subject matter of ICL. Knowledge production is shaped by institutional conditions. Access to academic networks, publishing platforms, funding opportunities, and professional visibility influences which ideas circulate and which debates receive sustained attention. Participation in global scholarly conversations is therefore not evenly distributed. This has several consequences. It may influence which questions are prioritised, which interpretive frameworks become dominant, and which experiences receive sustained scholarly attention.

These dynamics are particularly significant because ICL frequently engages with situations arising in regions that are not proportionally represented in academic production. Communities affected by armed conflict, mass atrocities, or transitional justice processes often generate forms of knowledge that are highly relevant to legal analysis. Yet linguistic, financial, institutional, and professional barriers may limit their participation in international scholarly debates. The result is not necessarily formal exclusion. More often, it manifests as an asymmetry in agenda-setting, whereby certain issues are foregrounded while others remain marginal or insufficiently theorised.

Why Intellectual Diversity Matters

The importance of greater intellectual diversity in ICL extends beyond questions of representation. Different scholarly traditions bring different analytical sensibilities. Legal concepts are not self-contained; they are interpreted through historical experience, methodological orientation, and institutional context. Expanding participation therefore affects not only who speaks, but also what is said and how it is understood. Scholars from different regions may identify doctrinal tensions that receive limited attention in mainstream debates. They may challenge assumptions that appear settled within dominant academic frameworks or introduce alternative understandings of concepts such as sovereignty, accountability, justice, and legitimacy. These contributions are not peripheral to the discipline; they are part of its development. This is especially visible in areas of persistent controversy, including complementarity, universal jurisdiction, immunities, victim participation, and selectivity in enforcement. These issues are not merely technical. They reflect deeper disagreements about the structure and purpose of ICL. Without broader participation, such debates risk becoming intellectually constrained.

Intellectual diversity also strengthens critical capacity. A discipline that engages with a wider range of perspectives is better positioned to identify its blind spots, question inherited assumptions, and refine its conceptual tools. Diversity, in this sense, is not simply a matter of inclusion; it is a matter of epistemic quality. ICL has always developed through disagreement. Its doctrines have emerged through contestation over responsibility, punishment, jurisdiction, and legitimacy. There is little reason to expect this dynamic to diminish. On the contrary, the future development of the field will continue to depend upon sustained and rigorous dialogue among scholars and practitioners from different backgrounds.

Scholarly Forums and Epistemic Openness

The question, therefore, is not only why diversity matters but also how more inclusive participation can be facilitated. While structural inequalities in global academia cannot be resolved by any single initiative, scholarly forums occupy a distinctive position within the ecosystem of legal scholarship. They can lower barriers to participation and enable forms of engagement that are less constrained by institutional hierarchy or geographical location. Unlike traditional publication venues, scholarly forums can operate with greater flexibility and responsiveness. They can accommodate emerging debates, encourage early-stage arguments, and foster dialogue among scholars, practitioners, and institutions that might not otherwise interact. Importantly, they can function as epistemic spaces. They do not merely disseminate existing knowledge; they participate in its formation. By enabling rapid exchange and critical engagement, forums allow ideas to be tested and refined before becoming embedded in more formal doctrinal or institutional frameworks. In this sense, scholarly forums contribute directly to the development of ICL as a knowledge system. They are not supplementary to academic production. They are part of its infrastructure.

The Vision of JICLAgora

JICLAgora is an online scholarly forum dedicated to international criminal law and related fields. It is conceived as a space for rigorous, timely, and accessible engagement with contemporary legal developments, bringing together scholars and practitioners from diverse jurisdictions and intellectual traditions. The Forum seeks to foster dialogue across geographical, institutional, and methodological boundaries while maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and legal analysis.

JICLAgora is founded on the premise that ICL requires a more inclusive and genuinely global scholarly conversation. The Forum does not seek to replace established academic journals or institutions. Rather, it aims to complement them by providing a space for timely, rigorous, and accessible engagement with contemporary developments in ICL and related fields.

Three principles guide its work. First, intellectual inclusiveness. The Forum welcomes contributions from scholars, practitioners, judges, prosecutors, defence counsel, and researchers from all regions and at all stages of their careers. Contributions are assessed on the basis of analytical quality and argumentative strength rather than institutional affiliation or geographical origin. Second, methodological pluralism. ICL benefits from doctrinal, theoretical, comparative, historical, and critical approaches. The Forum seeks to accommodate this diversity while maintaining a commitment to legal reasoning and scholarly rigour. Third, analytical discipline. Inclusiveness does not imply a relaxation of standards. On the contrary, contributions must demonstrate clear argumentation, engagement with relevant legal materials, and respect for scholarly debate.

JICLAgora also seeks to facilitate intergenerational dialogue within the field. The development of ICL depends upon interaction between established scholars and emerging researchers, each contributing distinct perspectives to ongoing debates. Ultimately, the Forum seeks to function not merely as a platform for publication but as a space for structured intellectual engagement.

Conclusion

ICL derives much of its authority from its claim to serve the international community. That claim, however, cannot be fully sustained if the production of knowledge about the field remains structurally uneven. The universal aspirations of ICL must therefore be understood not only as a characteristic of legal norms and institutions but also as a feature of scholarly practice.

 The legitimacy and future development of the discipline depend upon the extent to which its intellectual foundations reflect the diversity of the world it seeks to regulate. This is not merely a question of representation. It is a question of epistemic legitimacy and analytical completeness. ICL will continue to evolve through courts, institutions, and political processes. It will also evolve through scholarly debate. Ensuring that this debate is genuinely global is therefore not an auxiliary concern. It is a constitutive condition of the field’s intellectual credibility and normative authority. JICLAgora is established in this spirit. It seeks to provide a space in which ideas can circulate across borders, perspectives can engage in constructive disagreement, and ICL can develop through a truly global scholarly conversation.