This article critically analyses the International Criminal Court’s judicial policy of issuing arrest warrants through systematic analysis of 11 situations, ranging from Uganda to Palestine. Through qualitative content analysis that employs a transitional justice and legal institutionalism-grounded theory, the research displays the Court’s non-linear evolution across four distinct phases of conservatism to enhanced operational autonomy. The research finds that this change is governed by complex legal and political considerations, with state support and international assistance being more essential to successful warrant execution than strictly legal justification. The comparison finds significant institutional change and difficulties in the following fields: jurisdictional interpretation, head of state immunity, strategy for implementation of justice, cooperation of states, and methods for gathering evidence. The Court has countered underlying tensions among competing implications of justice by excelling at institutional adaptability through jurisdictional interpretation innovation, reparations regimes, and evidence gathering procedures.