The current oversimplification of the amnesty issue has created a narrative that international law prohibits granting and admitting the effect of amnesties for core crimes. However, even if a domestic amnesty is found illegal under international law, it is still valid at the national level. The International Criminal Court (icc) cannot ignore the existence of and the legal consequences of such ‘illegal’ amnesties in assessing the admissibility of a case. This article categorises amnesties into three types and clarifies the legal and factual effects of internationally illegal domestic amnesties for the icc and the legal logic under which the icc treats such amnesties at the admissibility stage based on the developing applicable laws. This study provides clear guidelines on the conditions that would make a case inadmissible before the icc for both the chambers and the domestic policy makers and legislators who design amnesties.

目前对特赦问题的过度简单化造成了一种说法，即国际法禁止对核心罪行给予和承认特赦的效果。然而，即使国际法认定国内特赦非法，它在国家层面仍然有效。国际刑事法院（icc）在评估案件的可受理性时不能忽视这种“非法”特赦的存在及其法律后果。本文将特赦分为三种类型，并根据正在制定的适用法律，阐明了国际非法国内特赦对国际刑事法院的法律和事实影响，以及国际刑事法院在受理阶段对待此类特赦的法律逻辑。这项研究为国际商会以及设计大赦的国内政策制定者和立法者提供了关于国际刑事法院不予受理案件的条件的明确指导方针。