This study is critically analysing the lack of universal jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as to why the ICC is denied universal jurisdiction and what are the consequences resulting therefrom on realisation of international criminal justice. Findings show that, lack of universal jurisdiction to the ICC defeats the initial purpose of setting up a permanent ICC. Because, some nationals whose nations are not state parties to the ICC cannot be prosecuted. Meaning, an individual can commit an international crime and go unpunished by the sole reason that his state is not a party to the ICC. Seeing this threat, the Rome Statute provides for some referrals. Accordingly, cases to the ICC can be referred by state party to the Rome Statute, or by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) when acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, or by non-state party when making declaration to accept the ICC jurisdiction in relation to a case, or by the prosecutor of the ICC by initiating investigations proprio motu. The important question to be asked is that are these referrals effective in obtaining international criminal justice? Evidently the issue is controversial. It is therefore important for the ICC to be accorded universal jurisdiction. This move is crucial in reducing often created ad hoc tribunals to serve the same purpose of which the ICC was created to serve. But also, the UNSC will be effective dealing with other matters of the international peace and security.

Research Article-Bangladesh Institute of Legal Development Law Journal Volume V Issue I 2020, Pg.43-67