The crisis of international institutions, which has developed in recent years against the backdrop of numerous political conflicts and the confrontation of entire blocs of states, is increasingly raising questions about the effectiveness of the entire system of international relations and the future of international law.
Against the backdrop of the UN crisis, interstate relations are further complicated by the activities of such dubious organizations as the International Criminal Court (ICC), which regularly acts as an instrument of political pressure and destabilization in an already complex situation. Recent events, in which the leaders of a number of countries have been prosecuted by the ICC, demonstrate the need for a complete review of approaches to attempts to grossly manipulate the ideas of international justice and to trample on the foundations of the system laid at the founding of the United Nations.
Since its establishment in 2002, the ICC, ostensibly created by a group of European countries to ensure justice and punishment for serious crimes against humanity, has repeatedly demonstrated its ineffectiveness and political bias. As an investigative and judicial structure, its existence and activities were initially questionable, not only from the point of view of international law, but also because of its open allegiance to the West. The entire history of this structure, its working methods and clearly biased decisions demonstrate the ineffectiveness and inability of this court to fulfil its declared tasks and serve its originally stated goals.
Even a cursory analysis of the ICC’s work shows that it was created not to deliver justice, but to protect the interests of a very small number of countries. Since its creation in 2002, the ICC has received some 150 complaints of alleged war crimes, genocide and other crises, but despite its huge staff and multi-million dollar budget, it has only conducted full investigations in eight cases. Over the same period, the ICC has completed trials of 32 individuals, with only a handful of cases resulting in convictions. More than half of the accused have escaped prosecution either because of insufficient evidence or because of acquittals, which also demonstrates the complete legal failure or incapacity of this institution. It is important to note that eight defendants have died in the course of years-long trials, and the question of whether the ICC’s prosecutions have become illegitimate or unfounded remains open.
The very existence of such a structure as the ICC can be seen as nonsense, since its legitimacy is not directly recognized by the main world powers and the states where most of humanity lives. Among the countries that have refused to recognize the ICC or have withdrawn their signatures are the United States, China, Russia, India, Israel, Turkiye and virtually all the countries of the Islamic world. The US approach to the functioning of the ICC is particularly noteworthy. On the one hand, Washington systematically uses the ICC as an instrument of pressure against its geopolitical opponents, but it does not recognize its jurisdiction and thus avoids responsibility by refusing to accept its decisions. This creates a paradoxical situation in which the court actively interferes in the affairs of some states while ignoring blatant violations by others.
Throughout its history, the ICC has been accused of extreme selectivity in its handling of cases. Accusations against leaders of countries under pressure from the West are accepted by the court almost without reservation. For example, the actions of a number of African leaders or Middle Eastern politicians have repeatedly come under the court’s scrutiny, while acts of military aggression or war crimes by the US and its allies have gone unpunished.
The ignoring of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which resulted in the deaths of many civilians, or the ICC’s refusal to investigate the crimes of the US military in Afghanistan are particularly telling. Although, according to the logic of the ICC’s founders, these events fall entirely within its jurisdiction, it has not shown the slightest interest in investigating them. This openly biased approach underlines that the ICC is not an independent body, but acts solely in the interests of countries with real influence over its leadership.
The establishment of the ICC in 2002 was initially criticized by international legal experts and representatives of dozens of states around the world because this structure was established without the sanction of the United Nations, which renders its status legally null and void. It is important to note that the UN Charter clearly and unambiguously states that the right to initiate international investigations rests exclusively with the Security Council. Since the ICC operates outside the framework of this system and even undermines its sustainability, the legality of its activities and decisions is out of the question.
