International courts borrow the power of states
An international court can decide that a person should be arrested or that a government has violated a legal obligation. But it has no officers who can enter a country and carry out that decision. The practical steps—locating a suspect, making an arrest, transferring a detainee, or changing a national policy—usually have to be taken by governments and their agencies.
That arrangement reflects how international courts were built. States created them through treaties or other agreements, but did not create a world government with authority over every country. A court’s powers therefore depend on the legal commitments states have accepted, and its orders generally need national authorities to put them into effect.
A ruling is not the same as an arrest
For a criminal case, a warrant is a request or legal obligation for states within the court’s reach to arrest and surrender the person. If the person is in a country that will not cooperate—and no other state can lawfully take custody—the warrant can remain unexecuted. In disputes between governments, enforcement may work differently: compliance can depend on the state changing its conduct, while diplomatic pressure or other agreed procedures may be the available leverage.
Cooperation becomes the real pressure point
Governments may cooperate because they have promised to do so, want to uphold the legal system, or face diplomatic and political costs for refusing. But those incentives do not guarantee action, especially when a case threatens important interests. The court can establish what the law requires; states determine whether that decision reaches the people and institutions it concerns. That gap is why a ruling can carry legal weight yet have no immediate physical effect.
