Argument 1: the Rome Statute allows and encourages domestic courts to try the crime first, as evidenced by the ICC being known as the court of last resort. Refer to Article 17; 20 of the Rome Statute

Introduction:
International criminal law encompasses rules and principles aimed at governing relations between states while ensuring accountability and fairness, ultimately to prevent gross violations of human rights (Posner & Sykes, 2013). The Rome Statute of 1998 (Rome Statute) identifies the most egregious crimes that international criminal law seeks to address, notably, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. However, international criminal laws existence may be argued to be illusionary, as its ability to prevent international crimes is hindered due to States having the ability to choose whether or not to abide by it. This is particularly evident because:

Argument 1: the Rome Statute allows and encourages domestic courts to try the crime first, as evidenced by the ICC being known as the court of last resort.

Refer to Article 17; 20 of the Rome Statute [not limited to this].

Argument 2: Additionally, State sovereignty is not intended to be eradicated by international criminal law, despite any overlap. This provides states with a shield against the enforcement of international criminal law.

Argument 3: There is also in place, the principle of universal jurisdiction which is rarely exercised.

Argument 4: The UN can refer/defer cases to the ICC.

Argument 5: Dependence, compliance and enforceability of the ICC.

On the other hand:

Counterargument 1: The ICC can still intervene if a case has been heard in a domestic court;

Refer to Article 20(3) of the Rome Statute [not limited to this].

Counterargument 2: ?

Counterargument 3?