Introduction Peace and justice are literally emblematic of the ICC. That Court’s emblem consists of the scales of justice framed and supported by the olive laurels of peace. That is hardly an accidental occurrence. On the contrary, it is a careful choice that was consciously and deliberately made as the visual presentation of the Court. And yet, holding individuals civilly responsible for the crime of aggression is a proposition yet to be legally tested. Accessing justice for violations of the law on the use of force is replete with dualisms concerning forums, bodies of law, legal regimes and personal status. Both the international Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have jurisdiction over violations of the law of the use of force in different yet overlapping ways. The use of force also has two different bodies of law regarding resort to force – jus ad bellum – and regulating force jus in bello. Breaches of the jus ad bellum or acts of aggression can attract compensation as international delicts (being contrary to ‘the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy’, contained within the title of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) as well as entail punishments as crimes (planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of aggression contrary to the UN Charter). More dualism is in that the persons with status or legal standing can be either states or individuals, and so on. This chapter inquires into the forms access to justice for victims of the use of force in international affairs take. For these purposes, it looks at the different regimes to which recourse may be had. It then analyses various doctrinal, theoretical and practical aspects to interrogate the efficacy of access to justice involving the use of force.