Despite increased rhetoric around aid transparency in the foreign aid and policy space, and a growing academic literature base critically examining this area, key gaps in knowledge remain. For example, relatively little is known about how donor funds for TJ are being specifically tracked, spent, and assessed. Furthermore, there is limited transparency about if and how affected communities in conflict contexts are being consulted about how best to use TJ funding. Despite the rhetoric about transparency, this area remains murky and inaccessible.

Where data does exist, a gender lens has often not been applied or accounted for. The lack of gender-disaggregated data makes it hard to discern the extent to which gender justice is taken into account in funding decisions.

Key terms and their implied meanings, such as “transformation” and “transitional justice” vary across donor and funding contexts. For example, when looking at funding from the UK Government for justice processes, many projects that explicitly invoked ‘transitional justice’ actually focused on security concerns.

Often there are multiple different parts of governments and ministries working on justice initiatives, which means the number of projects multiplies, but each has relatively small budgets, leading to a fragmented approach to justice programming and spending.

As a part of its wider work examining transitional justice funding, this project developed a new dataset examining the evolution of the International Criminal Court‘s (ICC) funding and investigated how it has been used to advance political agendas, as well as its alignment with the Court’s stated priorities on gender equality, gender justice, and prosecuting sexual and gender-based crimes. The following case study provides a deeper dive into this area of the project’s work.

Funding issues lie at the heart of many controversies facing the (ICC), with critics questioning its efficiency, allocation of resources, and focus on certain regions. Budget pressures intensified during the 2008 Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, leading state parties to demand greater efficiency and a broader scope of investigations. The ICC struggles to deliver impartial justice while relying on unpredictable state funding, and often underestimates its resource needs. States may use their financial support to maintain control over international courts or discipline rivals while claiming the moral high ground.

The ICC’s reliance on state parties for funding and the politicisation of its budget are highlighted by the response of state parties to the Ukraine situation. While the increased funding may support the Court’s work on gender-based crimes, it also raises questions about the ICC’s impartiality and its ability to convince state parties that it provides value for money. These funding dynamics suggest that the Court is a tool of powerful states. Funding constraints are introduced when the Court demonstrates independence and investigates situations that wealthy States Parties would prefer they avoid.

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) receives 32% of the Court’s budget, while only 2.2% is dedicated to defence counsel. This represents a weaker investment in defence legal aid compared to previous international criminal tribunals.

Debt politics is another issue the ICC faces, as many state parties fail to pay their dues, which affects the Court’s ability to fulfil its mission. As of 2019, predominantly rich state parties were the largest debtors, collectively owing €80 million when the ICC’s annual budget was slightly over €148 million. The Rome Statute contains provisions to sanction state parties for nonpayment, but these consequences are limited, particularly for richer countries. Mechanisms do exist to punish funding shortfalls, but they largely target poor countries that are not strategic allies of wealthy states parties.

The Court’s proposed budgets have seen an increase in gender mentions over time, and the focus of requests has shifted from representation and resources for gender-sensitivity training to psychosocial resources for victims and witnesses, gender analysis in investigations and fair gender representation at the Court.

The TFV, responsible for reparations and victim support, is significantly underfunded and struggles with unpredictable funding sources. The TFV relies on voluntary donations, which is unsustainable, and states should focus on tracing, freezing, and seizing assets of convicted persons to provide funds for reparations.

Providing meaningful and timely reparations has been challenging for the Court, with only a fraction of eligible victims receiving tangible benefits. Although the Reparations Order in the Ntaganda case is a victory for gender-sensitive reparations, fulfilling the TFV’s mandate still depends on sufficient funding from state parties and other actors.

• The Court and donors should adopt a gender mainstreaming approach to all budget and resource allocation issues.
• More money needs to be devoted to delivering tangible benefits for victims over administrative costs.
• The Trust Fund for Victims, needs more of its funding to come from mandatory contributions to facilitate stability for planning purposes.

• The Court needs to demonstrate to state parties the impact that uneven and unreliable funding has on its ability to deliver timely and effective justice. It also needs to communicate more clearly that donations must not be targeted to specific situations or potential prosecutions as this calls the independence of the Court into question.
• Additional resources are needed to sustain and expand progress on prioritising gender-based crimes and crimes against children across all parts of the Court’s operations.