The International Criminal Court (ICC) represents the major expression of the internalization of
criminal justice. However, at times, the influence of the judges’ domestic legal background plays
a determining role in the interpretation and application of the Rome Statute. This is clear, for
example, in the case law on the interpretation and application of indirect perpetration within the
meaning of art. 25(3)(a), third alternative, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court (ICCSt or Rome Statute), where the predominance of the German doctrine is manifest.
Therefore, a domestic legal system predominates over the others, without there being a solid legal
basis for this choice. An individualistic approach to the interpretation and application of the Rome
Statute, too anchored to one’s domestic legal background and culture, could challenge the
credibility of the Court and affect its legitimacy. By highlighting the inadequacy of the ICC’s
decisions on the transposition of the German Organisationsherrschaftslehre to the ICC, with
particular regard to its theoretical foundations in the Rome Statute, this paper highlights the
importance of the comparative analysis aimed at determining a common approach which results
from the solutions adopted in different domestic legal systems to solve similar problems. It appears
to be the only solution in order to transform the ICC into an independent system of global
international justice not only in abstract terms but also by means of the interpretation and
application of the Rome Statute and thus in the development of a theory on indirect perpetration,
independent from specific domestic law and doctrines.