GGA ¦ 15th Colloquium: Integrity Without Borders - The International Anti-Corruption Court

Integrity without borders – Why an International Anti‑Corruption Court (IACC) is the next crucial tool in the fight against grand corruption

The global conversation on corruption is shifting from disclosure and domestic enforcement to institutional solutions that cross borders. At the 15th Good Governance Academy colloquium, expert drafters, judges, prosecutors, asset recovery specialists and business leaders set out a reasoned, pragmatic case for an International Anti‑Corruption Court (IACC) – a treaty‑based tribunal intended to investigate and prosecute grand corruption and to facilitate the decisive recovery and return of looted public assets. The draft statute and the project behind it are not an ideological flourish; they respond to practical governance failures that today allow kleptocrats to hide behind weak domestic systems and stash stolen wealth in jurisdictions that are difficult to penetrate.

Why the problem demands an international court

Speakers at the colloquium framed grand corruption as a multi‑dimensional harm that undermines human rights, public services, investor confidence and climate action. When heads of state, senior officials and private‑sector enablers divert funds intended for health, education and infrastructure, the consequences are immediate and long lasting: poverty, displacement and poor development outcomes. Investigations such as the Pandora Papers have shown the sheer scale and transnational pattern of looting and laundering. National prosecutions and piecemeal asset recovery efforts remain uneven and politically constrained. The result is a systemic enforcement gap – the kind of gap an institution with multinational jurisdiction and focused expertise can fill.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"The International Anti‑Corruption Court offers a practical, targeted response to the transnational nature of grand corruption by pairing criminal accountability with a dedicated asset recovery mechanism. Its design emphasizes complementarity with national systems, specialist expertise, and procedures tailored to speed and fairness, making it a credible deterrent and a pathway to restitution.

For the court to succeed, broad regional buy‑in, sustained political will, and strong cooperation from states and private actors are essential. Businesses, civil society and practitioners can accelerate progress by advocating with their governments, strengthening internal governance, and supporting whistleblower protections and cross‑border asset tracing capacity."

Core features of the proposed IACC

The draft treaty for the IACC, prepared by a team of over 70 experts and steered by experienced jurists, proposes a court with two complementary divisions: a criminal division and an assets division. Its jurisdiction would be triggered when domestic authorities are unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute the same crimes – a principle of complementarity modeled on the Rome Statute of the ICC but adapted for corruption’s realities.

The criminal division would cover core offenses drawn from the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC): bribery (domestic and foreign), embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds, laundering of proceeds, trading in influence, abuse of office, illicit enrichment and related concealment offenses. The draft expressly rejects immunity for official capacity – heads of state would not be able to hide behind state immunity. Investigative powers would include proprio motu investigations by a dedicated prosecutor, and procedural design choices aim for speed and efficiency by avoiding some costly ICC pre‑trial structures.

The assets division is the IACC’s most innovative, and arguably most consequential, element. It is structured as a civil‑standard forum to adjudicate competing claims over assets located abroad and to order freezing, forfeiture, liquidation and repatriation. It would permit victim states to seek binding determinations about entitlement to stolen assets even when no criminal conviction is secured, applying the lower civil standard of proof and simpler procedures tailored to property recovery. This fills a major gap: existing UNCAC mechanisms promote cooperation and negotiation, but there is no single empowered international tribunal that can make authoritative, enforceable decisions on asset ownership and return.

Practical advantages and anticipated impacts

An international court focused on grand corruption offers several practical advantages.

1. It concentrates expertise – specialist investigators, prosecutors and judges experienced in tracing complex cross‑border financial flows, shell company structures and professional enablers such as banks, lawyers and real estate intermediaries.
2. It can provide capacity support to domestic authorities that are willing but lack resources.
3. By pairing criminal accountability with an asset recovery tribunal, the IACC would be able to pursue both deterrence and restitution at scale – the two outcomes victims and reformers most value.
4. The court’s existence would exert normative and reputational pressure: membership and cooperation signals a country’s commitment to fighting grand corruption and can deter would‑be perpetrators and enablers.

Political and operational obstacles

The project does not underplay obstacles. Sovereignty concerns, especially among states with a history of colonialism or sensitive political contexts, have emerged repeatedly in consultations. Securing ratification across regions is therefore both a political and diplomatic exercise: the court must establish credibility and broad regional buy‑in to avoid perceptions of selectivity or bias. Cooperation is another practical hurdle: the IACC will depend on state parties for arrests, evidence gathering, and enforcement of orders. Experience with other international courts shows how political resistance or lack of cooperation can frustrate even well‑designed mandates.

Funding and ethics of operating finance

Funding proposals in the draft mirror UN practice – assessed contributions by states scaled to capacity – with the court intended to be lean and efficient compared with the ICC. Fines and penalties imposed by the criminal division may contribute to financing operations, but the draft carefully preserves the moral boundary that recovered looted funds must not be diverted to pay for the court itself; those assets belong to victim states and people.

Whistleblowers, victims and legal persons

The statute contemplates robust measures for victims’ participation and for witness and whistleblower protection – essential to securing cooperation and evidence. On the private side, the draft treaty is notable for recognizing legal persons (corporations and other entities) as subject to liability, reflecting the crucial role companies and shell structures play in laundering stolen public funds. An optional provision on failure to prevent corruption is included for further discussion.

What businesses and civil society can do now

The movement to create the IACC is gathering momentum: more than 300 public figures and civil society organizations back the idea, and several states have signaled interest. For financial crime practitioners, compliance officers and civil society advocates, priority actions are clear. At the domestic level, businesses should strengthen internal governance – embed integrity into corporate strategy, maintain effective whistleblowing channels with protections, and ensure due diligence in client onboarding and transactions that could be linked to political exposure. Civil society and practitioners should advocate to national governments for consideration in treaty dialogues, support capacity building for asset tracing, and promote transparency measures that complement the court’s eventual work.

Conclusion – a realistic, necessary addition to global governance

An International Anti‑Corruption Court would not end grand corruption by itself. It is not a panacea. But the IACC represents a pragmatic policy design that addresses specific failings of the current system: lack of international prosecutorial and adjudicative capacity for grand corruption and the absence of a specialized forum that can make binding decisions about recovery and return of looted assets. By combining criminal accountability with a dedicated assets division, the proposed court aims to deliver two public goods: deterrence and restitution. For victims, and for the global economy, that is precisely the kind of targeted institutional innovation the world needs.

If you work in compliance, asset recovery, or policy advocacy and want to support or learn more about the draft statute, consider reaching out to Integrity Initiatives International (III) and the coalition supporting the IACC for materials and guidance on how to engage your government, industry body or NGO in constructive dialogue.

Dive deeper

• Good Governance Academy (GGA) ¦ 15th Colloquium: Integrity Without Borders - The International Anti-Corruption Court ¦ Link
• Integrity Initiatives International (III) ¦ the leading advocate for the creation of an International Anti-Corruption Court (IACC) ¦ Link