The contemporary series of international armed conflicts imposed upon the Islamic Republic of Iran—culminating in the recent 12-day war and the "Ramadan War"—has necessitated a critical re-examination of the role of international criminal justice. In the face of grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, decision-makers and the public alike often voice skepticism toward the international Criminal justice mechanisms, such as ICC and international fact-finding bodies. This skepticism is largely predicated on the perceived "ineffectiveness and useless" of these institutions, rooted in the absence of effective coercive enforcement and the persistence of systemic impunity for aggressor states. This paper argues that such an assessment suffers from a fundamental conceptual error: the imposition of domestic criminal justice benchmarks—specifically retribution and prevention—onto the complex, politicized, and structurally constrained arena of international criminal law.



By adopting a methodology rooted in contemporary legal philosophy, this study challenges the binary view that international justice is either "effective" (if it leads to arrest and conviction) or "futile" (if it does not). Instead, it posits that international justice must be understood through the lenses of "Expressive Justice" and "Narrative Justice." In a global order where power dynamics and selective justice often prevent the realization of punitive goals, the inherent value of these institutions shifts from the physical containment of the criminal to the normative preservation of the truth. International criminal law, when engaged, functions as a powerful instrument of social and historical meaning. It provides a formal, judicial vocabulary to label atrocities as illegal, thereby preventing the "normalization" of war crimes that aggressor states frequently attempt through strategic disinformation and "lawfare."



The article explores the "war of narratives" that invariably accompanies the physical theater of war. Perpetrators of international crimes do not merely engage in kinetic violence; they simultaneously engage in a communicative strategy aimed at legitimizing their actions, reframing aggression as "preemptive defense" or "humanitarian necessity." In this context, the failure of the international community to provide a judicial response effectively grants the aggressor a monopoly over the historical record. By analyzing cases such as the 1988 downing of the Iranian Airbus and more recent conflicts, the study demonstrates that the absence of formal legal proceedings leaves a void that is inevitably filled by the perpetrator’s account. Consequently, the act of seeking justice—even without a high probability of immediate conviction—is a vital act of historical documentation and a defense of the rule of law.



Furthermore, this research elaborates on the concept of "Narrative Justice," which centers on the lived experience of the victim. In many instances of international criminal prosecution, victims are relegated to the status of witnesses, their role limited to assisting the state in achieving a verdict. This paper argues for a broader, restorative approach where the legal process serves as a platform for the articulation and validation of the victim’s suffering. By recording evidence and exposing the systemic nature of the crimes, international legal mechanisms serve to validate the victim's identity against the dehumanizing narratives of the aggressor. This act of "telling the story" within a formal international forum is essential for institutionalizing the memory of the conflict and ensuring that the tragedy is not erased from the collective conscience of the international community.



The study also addresses the critique of "selectivity" in international justice. While the author acknowledges that the ICC and similar tribunals often operate within the constraints of global power politics—leading to selective prosecutions—it argues that this does not invalidate the institution’s purpose. Rather, it serves as an incentive for victim states to proactively engage in legal activism. Passive resistance or total withdrawal from international forums only exacerbates the "culture of impunity." Engaging with international justice is, therefore, a strategic necessity. It is a way of "norm-setting" by creating a trail of judicial records that will outlast the current political climate.



In conclusion, this research provides a nuanced framework for Iranian policymakers and legal scholars, suggesting a pivot from a results-oriented approach—which leads to paralysis and secondary victimization—toward a process-oriented strategy. By prioritizing the "expressive" function of the law, Iran can challenge the hegemony of the aggressor's narrative, solidify the evidentiary basis of war crimes, and contribute to the global legal discourse. The project of international justice is not a failed enterprise; it is an ongoing, long-term struggle to align the historical reality of suffering with the normative requirements of the international rule of law. The success of this endeavor is not to be found in the confines of a prison cell in The Hague, but in the enduring, authoritative, and judicial preservation of truth against the forces of denial and historical revisionism.