To date, apart from a few prosecutions in European states, there has been widespread impunity for international crimes committed in Syria since March 2011. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is arguably the most suitable forum for prosecuting alleged perpetrators. However, thus far no accused has appeared before the Court. Indeed, the Prosecutor has yet to even open an investigation due primarily to the inability to establish a precondition for the exercise of jurisdiction. This article examines if this situation is now likely to change in light of a number of recent and controversial decisions of the Court. The decisions discussed in the article generated rigorous and at times divisive debate amongst academic commentators. Accordingly, the article also incorporates a cross-cutting theoretical analysis of the extent to which the differing responses to these decisions reflects the historic fault-line between realists and liberals.