Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
The world retains altering, and never at all times for the higher. We have now witnessed the fast degradation of many supranational authorized buildings, which have fallen sufferer to their dependence on the desire, funding and values of the so-called collective West. That is true, for example, for the Worldwide Prison Court docket (the Hague Prison Court docket). The nice intentions which guided those that established it 20 years in the past have evidently paved the highway to hell. The additional, the extra so.
Deplorable as it could appear, it’s greater than pure. Suffice it to recollect the historical past of this authorized establishment, which has gone a brief approach from alleged demand to full uselessness on the sting of absurdity, bias and cynicism. You will need to perceive what its present actions are conditioned by, how one can react to them and what, in the long run, shall exchange this worldwide physique, which has compromised itself so rapidly.
1.
It began ceremoniously, so to say. A longing for justice has at all times united thousands and thousands of individuals on Earth. Historical past holds examples of falling empires, whose rulers in some unspecified time in the future went euphoric resulting from their very own lawlessness, solely to be swept away within the blink of an eye fixed by the favored wrath. But it’s normally tough to convey the highly effective of this world to justice for crimes in opposition to the general public good and humanity. That’s the reason supranational judicial authorities, not being topic to any nationwide authorities, are endowed with this job.
Institution of worldwide legal tribunals after the Second World Struggle was the primary try in historical past to claim the supremacy of legislation on a world scale, to attain justice and actual equality past state, financial and ideological borders. The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals dedicated themselves to the duty which the courts of Germany, Japan and their former allies couldn’t have accepted the accountability for.
When the work of the worldwide tribunals ended, authorized students from numerous international locations proposed the institution of a everlasting worldwide judicial physique, which might convey to justice these responsible for essentially the most violent crimes in opposition to humanity. The lingering Chilly battle impeded these plans. It was solely on the cusp of the Nineties that the concept of a everlasting worldwide legal court docket was revived¹, and in 1998 in Rome the Statute of the Worldwide Prison Court docket was signed as its constitution doc.
The ICC was established as an unbiased worldwide organisation. Its principal physique is the Meeting of States Events, which incorporates all member states (125 at current). The Meeting has a Bureau which shall help the Meeting within the discharge of its duties (artwork. 112(3) of the Rome statute). The primary operate, i.e. bringing to justice those that dedicated the ‘most critical crimes of concern to the worldwide group as a complete’, is vested within the ICC. The Court docket consists of 18 judges, elected by the Meeting, the workplace of the Prosecutor, elected by the identical physique, and the Secretariat. The judges operate as a part of the Pre-Trial Chamber, which initiates legal proceedings and points arrest warrants; the Judicial divisions, which contemplate the case on the deserves; the Appeals division, which critiques claims in respect of acts and choices of the decrease divisions; and the Presidency, which inter alia is liable for the ‘correct administration of the Court docket, except for the Workplace of the Prosecutor’ (artwork 38(3) of the Rome Statute). The top of it’s the President.
Beneath artwork.119 of the Statute, the Court docket might, by itself movement, decide the admissibility of any case. Thus, the Court docket is the one and supreme occasion in disputes it’s concerned in, i.e. it performs as a choose in its personal case (which, in truth, contradicts the nemo judex in propria causa² precept). All judges and different staff of the ICC have worldwide immunity and privileges on the territories of the member states, together with the Netherlands, the place it’s seated.
The ICC has jurisdiction over essentially the most critical crimes, particularly genocide, crimes in opposition to humanity and battle crimes. But its jurisdiction will not be common and covers solely crimes dedicated on the territory of its member states or by residents of its member states.³ Aside from the abovementioned controversial factors, the Court docket’s Statute has contained different provisions from the very starting which in lots of instances might render not possible the enforcement of its choices (and so they have, as we’ll see later).
In any case, in 2002 the ICC Statute was ratified by the required variety of member states and got here into pressure on July 1 of the identical 12 months. Again then, the state of affairs on the earth was completely completely different from what we will see now. It was clear that approval of the Rome Statute (like every other worldwide treaty) required representatives of greater than 100 nations to hunt mutually acceptable wording, striving for enhancement of the cooperation on this sphere. Persistently advocating full compliance with the UN Constitution, the international locations assumed that any contradictions may very well be progressively eradicated with a deal with the important thing ideas of the worldwide legislation enshrined within the UN paperwork. Taking this into consideration, the Russian Ministry of Worldwide Affairs accepted the execution of the Rome Statute within the identify and on behalf of the Russian Federation in 2000.
But later the Hague Prison Court docket displayed its political bias. The ICC itself com- mitted grave violations of the acknowledged ideas of worldwide legislation. In opposition to this political and authorized background, in 2016 Russia determined to not be get together to the Rome Statute⁴. The U.S. and several other different international locations acted in the identical approach. Making an allowance for that China didn’t signal the Rome Statute, three out of 5 everlasting members of the UN Safety Council aren’t events to it.
2.
The worldwide group positioned critical hopes on the Hague Prison Court docket at first. But on the very second of its institution it was fairly clear that the authorized construction itself regarded fairly unusual. Its constitution paperwork initially contained a complete row of inconsistencies, the primary of them being clear discrepancies with most essential relevant guidelines of worldwide legislation — primarily with its cornerstone, the UN Constitution, which accommodates the basics of the legislation and order within the post-war world. The UN Constitution is to be consulted when creating common treaties between states, in addition to quite a few regional and bilateral agreements.
Article 103 of the UN Constitution stipulates that its provisions shall prevail over provisions of every other worldwide treaty. In line with article 38 of the Statute of the UN Worldwide Court docket of Justice the primary supply of worldwide legislation are worldwide treaties (common and particular), worldwide conventions, common authorized ideas.
But the Rome Statute supplied for its personal hierarchy of sources of worldwide legislation. In line with article 21 of the Rome Statute, the Hague Court docket shall apply, within the first place, ‘this Statute, Components of Crimes and its Guidelines of Process and Proof’; and solely within the second place (solely the place applicable), ‘relevant treaties and the ideas and guidelines of worldwide legislation, together with the established ideas of the worldwide legislation of armed conflicts’.
Thus, the internationally established ideas of worldwide legislation underneath the UN Constitution could also be utilized by the Hague Court docket underneath the 1998 Rome Statute solely within the second place, after the Statute and the paperwork adopted by the Meeting and the Hague Court docket itself. This manner the established quasi-judicial mechanism was given a leeway within the type of the precise to disregard the UN Constitution and the authorized norms enshrined in it. The truth is, this distortion of the steadiness of the relevant worldwide legislation within the Rome Statute is inadmissible for any sovereign state, together with Russia as a everlasting member of the UN Safety Council.
Moreover, the notion of ‘common ideas of the legal legislation’ used within the Rome Statute is in its essence improper, because it doesn’t differentiate between the nationwide legal legislation (the US, for instance) and the worldwide legislation relevant to combating cross-border crime.
All this ‘salad bowl of ideas’ was clearly not in compliance with the nationwide pursuits of the Russian Federation (or every other sovereign state). Opposite to the identification generally utilized within the authorized science one ought to differentiate between the Rome Statute, the constitution doc of the ICC, and the treaties entered into by the united states and its allies (different superpowers) through the Second World Struggle, ranging from the Moscow declarations signed on 30 October 1943. Extra so {that a} reference to this Declaration of the 4 main states will be present in article 106 of the UN Constitution. The Settlement entered by and between the governments of the united states, the USA, Nice Britain and France to strive the Nazi leaders and organisations accused of battle crimes on the London Convention on 8 August 1945 is basically completely different from the constitution of the Hague Prison Court docket as effectively. By way of their worldwide authorized standing, by advantage of the UN Constitution, the abovementioned paperwork are above any doc handed by the Hague Prison Court docket.
But those that influenced the event of the ICC weren’t the least involved. As an illustration, flouting of this basic political and authorized distinction (amalgamation of the previous and the latter underneath the umbrella time period ‘worldwide legal justice’) characterised the pro-NATO prosecution of the Serbian leaders within the framework of the so-called Worldwide tribunal for prosecuting individuals liable for critical violations of worldwide humanitarian legislation dedicated on the territory of the previous Yugoslavia after 1991. Russian research of worldwide legislation have by no means admitted this amalgamation⁵. Examples of such inconsistencies are quite a few.
3.
Because of this the ICC judicial observe raised reliable questions, not solely from authorized students. As time went on the ICC was more and more demonstrating its dependency on political and ideological elements which in truth shall be excluded from its observe. An apparent inclination was developed in direction of condemning or pardoning solely within the pursuits of the so-called collective West on the idea of its a lot favoured double requirements. Curious as it could appear, this concerned currying favour with plenty of states (primarily the USA) which have been fairly dismissive in direction of the ICC and its observe. It’s understand- in a position, as within the West there’s a powerful hierarchy of relations which displayed itself lately within the case of Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant and others, when the European international locations being events to the ICC Statute at first voiced their intention to prosecute Israeli leaders however after a tricky rebuke from Washington began speaking in regards to the ‘distinctive nature’ of the case and refused to prosecute the Israeli officers. Strictly talking, after that the ICC ought to have chosen to dissolve itself, as it’s not possible to think about a better contempt.
Typically, in keeping with the ICC website, it has thought of 33 instances in additional than 20 years; some instances are into consideration, together with these in respect of a number of political and army leaders from Africa (the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Sudan, Rwanda, Kenya, Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, the Central African Re- public). They’re accused of tortures, rape, robberies, bloodbath, kidnapping, destruction of peaceable settlements, abuse of prisoners of battle and civilians, together with ladies and youngsters.
A number of individuals concerned within the trials have been in truth condemned and imprisoned, primarily speedy perpetrators in a restricted variety of international locations, officers who have been testified in opposition to. Nonetheless, plenty of high-ranking battle criminals went unpunished. The Hague Prison Court docket demonstrated discriminatory blindness and listening to loss of their respect.
It is usually evident that for a few years the ICC has totally thought of the instances of indisputably violent but fairly extraordinary leaders of ethnic gangs, serial killers and rapists. As much as their elbows in blood of their compatriots, they nonetheless weren’t highly effective political figures posing hazard to the entire humankind. A query arises: are these ‘warlords’, leaders of conflicting African tribes and different criminals actual ‘worldwide criminals’ the nationwide justice can’t address?⁶ Was it actually needed to ascertain such high-priced behemoth because the ICC to restrain and produce them to legal responsibility?
It’s no coincidence that former Chair of the African Union Fee Jean Ping informed journalists that the Court docket is a toy of declining imperial powers⁷. Opinions unfold that apparently the ICC was solely curious about prosecuting Africans who confronted the Western affect, and used Africa as a laboratory for testing worldwide legal jus- tice⁸. It shouldn’t go unnoticed that again in 2017 the African Union handed a decision calling on all African international locations to stop cooperation with the ICC by way of imposing
arrest warrants for African suspects and to collectively withdraw from the ICC⁹. The truth that the ICC is biased and acts within the pursuits of plenty of Western international locations refusing to prosecute individuals from the NATO international locations was recognised by representa- tives of varied continents. Because of this particularly Burundi and the Philippines declared their withdrawal from the Statute¹⁰.
One other factor has attracted consideration as effectively. For an ‘unknown’ purpose the ICC failed to contemplate occasions within the international locations the place justice, peace and humanism have been nothing in need of a daydream but the place the US and their NATO allies have been advancing their pursuits. Thus, for nearly twenty years (from 2001 to 2021) the NATO forces have been engaged in energetic army operations on the territory of Afghanistan, the state which joined the ICC in 2003. In line with media reviews throughout all this era they dedicated actions which may very well be thought to be crimes of war¹¹. But the ICC by no means did that.
One other instance: in November 2017 the then-Prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, utilized to the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber for a permission to provoke investigation of crimes in opposition to humanity and battle crimes dedicated by the Afghan opposition group ‘Taliban’*, battle crimes dedicated by the Afghan authorities safety forces, and battle crimes dedicated on the territory of Afghanistan beginning on 1 Might 2003 by US army personnel and CIA officers. After eighteen months of consideration in April 2019 the Pre-Trial Chamber rejected the request, stating that ‘an investigation into the state of affairs in Afghanistan at this stage wouldn’t serve the pursuits of justice’¹². The Prosecutor appealed to the Appeals Chamber, which in March 2020 reversed the decision¹³, thus enabling the Prosecutor to provoke preliminary investigation, inter alia in respect of battle crimes dedicated in Afghanistan by US army personnel and residents.
This was adopted by a harsh response of the US, which isn’t a member of the ICC, to the very concept of bringing their army personnel and residents to legal responsibility in a global tribunal. In June 2020 US President Donald Trump declared that the ICC’s assertion of jurisdiction over U.S. army, intelligence, and different personnel in the middle of investigating actions allegedly dedicated by these personnel in or regarding Afghanistan ‘constitutes an uncommon and extraordinary risk to the nationwide safety and overseas coverage of the US’¹⁴. Invoking authorities supplied in US legislation the President signed Govt Order 13928, underneath which the Secretary of State, in session with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Lawyer Basic, is tasked with figuring out any ‘overseas particular person’ that, particularly, has immediately engaged within the ICC’s efforts to analyze, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel with out the consent of the US, or has materially assisted, sponsored, or supplied monetary, materials, or technological assist for, or items or providers to or in assist of, any ICC efforts described above. Such individuals will be topic to having property blocked if that property is underneath U.S. jurisdiction; as well as, they are often denied entry into the US¹⁵. On 2 September 2020 the US imposed private sanctions¹⁶ on the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, and Phakiso Mochochoko, the ICC’s Director of jurisdiction, complementary and cooperation division¹⁷.
Ultimately, regardless of the newly obtained proper to provoke investigation of battle crimes and crimes in opposition to humanity dedicated in Afghanistan the brand new ICC Prosecutor has not but charged any US army personnel who participated within the hostilities in Afghanistan.
5 years later, having returned to workplace Donald Trump was fast to reiterate his place in direction of the ICC. And he didn’t restrict himself to condemnation. On 6 February 2025 the US President signed an Govt Order which imposed sanctions in opposition to the Worldwide Prison Court docket in response to ‘illegitimate and baseless actions concentrating on America and our shut ally Israel’¹⁸. The US President said that the conduct of the Court docket ‘threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the US’¹⁹. The US threatened to impose ‘tangible and important penalties’ on ICC officers, staff, and brokers, in addition to their speedy relations, together with the blocking of property and belongings and the suspension of entry into the United States²⁰.
It must be famous that the primary particular person to face sanctions from the newly elected President was Karim Khan, Prosecutor of the ICC, who initiated issuance of an arrest warrant for the Russian President. In his Govt Order Trump, particularly, suspended Karim Khan’s entry into the US, and his property that’s in or here- after comes inside the territory of the US, is blocked²¹.
4.
But it was by way of the arrest warrants issued for heads of sovereign states that the ICC reached the top of nonsense and disutility, together with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in respect of the state of affairs in Ukraine²². Passing such choices the ICC officers have been effectively conscious of the truth that they’d by no means convey any sensible consequence, saving propaganda penalties clearly within the pursuits of the identical Anglo-Saxon world.
Judges and officers of the ICC undoubtedly shall not be thought of insane or ignorant. These are skilled legal professionals, who’re effectively conscious of the content material of worldwide treaties and the restrict of their authority. But they’ve by no means refused to carry out some ‘ideological put-up job’, particularly when it considerations heads of sovereign states.
Establishing the Hague Prison Court²³ the events to the Rome Statute agreed on a compromise. On the one hand, the Statute stipulates that immunities of the Head of State or one other senior official of the state supplied by the worldwide legislation ‘shall not bar the Court docket from exercising its jurisdiction over such an individual’ (article 27). Alternatively, in the identical doc the Court docket commits itself to ‘acquiring the cooperation’ of a respective state for the waiver of the immunity of its senior official (article 98).
The truth is the Hague Prison Court docket with none waiver supplied by respective international locations launched the observe of issuing arrest warrants for sure appearing heads of sovereign states (non-Western, as a rule). First warrants of this sort have been issued in respect of Sudan’s head of state Omar al-Bashir (in 2009) and Libya’s appearing head of state Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (in 2011). The case in opposition to al-Gaddafi was terminated upon his loss of life; the arrest warrant for Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, his son and companion, the de-facto Prime Minister of Libya, has not been enforced but, the case being on the stage of pre-trial listening to.
As for Omar al-Bashir, Sudan refused to implement the Court docket’s warrant, stating that it was a ‘political’ doc which contradicted to the nationwide legislation, and the ICC itself didn’t have respective jurisdiction. Nor was the warrant enforced in plenty of ICC member states (Malawi, Jordan, Uganda, Chad, the RSA and others) which Omar al-Bashir visited. The authorized positions of a number of international locations from this checklist have been thought of by the ICC Judicial Divisions, which largely shaped the Court docket’s place on immunities of senior officers of the states which aren’t members of the ICC. The ICC’s opinion on this regard was principally expressed within the resolution of the Appeals Chamber regarding Jordan’s refusal to give up Omar al-Bashir.
Within the opinion of the ICC, ‘no immunities underneath customary worldwide legislation function in such a state of affairs to bar a global court docket in its train of its personal jurisdiction’²⁴. Thus, in essence, the ICC proceeds from the notion that there isn’t a rule of customary worldwide legislation which might give immunity from arrest and give up of the pinnacle of state which is not get together to the Rome Statute by the state which is a member of the Statute on the idea of the request for arrest and give up issued by the Court²⁵.
Being relatively disputable, this and different assertions precipitated honest criticism from specialists in worldwide legislation and, naturally, representatives of nationwide justice in numerous international locations.
I wish to emphasise the next. Regardless of the interpretations of articles 27 and 98 of the Rome Statute, the very concern of arrest warrants by the Hague Prison Court docket for heads of sovereign states shall be certified as a violation of worldwide legislation, to start with, the UN Constitution. The explanations are as follows.
First, the UN Constitution provisions prevail over the Rome Statute, because it was talked about earlier.
Second, the precept of sovereign equality of all UN members is the idea of the UN (article 2). The heads of state characterize the respective sovereign governments and by advantage of such fundamental supply of worldwide legislation as worldwide conventions they ‘get pleasure from full immunity from jurisdiction in different states, each civil and legal’²⁶. The violation of this by the Hague Prison Court docket is an offence.
Third, the Hague tribunal’s encroachment on limitation of the sovereignty of a state (in case of Russia, furthermore, a everlasting member of the UN Safety Council) via pushing in direction of an arrest of the pinnacle of state, thus impeding the efficiency of respective official capabilities, shall be additionally certified as a violation of worldwide legislation. Initially, by advantage of the primary job of the UN Safety Council being upkeep of worldwide peace and safety (article 24 of the UN Constitution).
Fourth, the Hague Prison court docket ignores the apparent proven fact that three out of 5 everlasting members of the UN Safety Council aren’t events to the Rome Statute. This resolution was at completely different occasions taken by China, Russia and the USA. Therefore by advantage of article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Conference on the Regulation of Treaties and customary worldwide law²⁷ the Rome Statute shall not create any obligations for the states which aren’t its members (article 34 of the 1969 Conference), together with these introduced by the Hague Prison Court docket.
Fifth, the ICC officers shall perceive that making an attempt to restrict the actions of the pinnacle of state which is a everlasting member of the Safety Council they try to impede the functioning of the UN’s principal physique, which is solely liable for selling peace. When the worldwide group is basically divided and our planet is on the point of a 3rd world battle, the ICC’s resolution in itself has elevated the worldwide threat. The accountability for this growing risk to humanity lies on particular officers of the Hague Prison Court docket as effectively.
5.
It’s well-known that even earlier than the high-profile ‘political put-up job’ in respect of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin the Hague Prison Court docket usually needed to run fairly slippery errands of its clandestine puppet masters. After the 2014 coup in Kyiv aided by the USA²⁸, refusal of the individuals of Crimea and Donbass to recognise legitimacy of the coup, fixed shelling of Donbass on the course of Kyiv leaders and de- facto genocide of its inhabitants Russia took measures to guard compatriots. Not bothering itself with authorized evaluation of the abovementioned details and the relevant legislation the Hague Prison Court docket obligingly supported the ‘authorized battle’ in opposition to our nation waged by the US and their satellites. A really contentious time period, the ‘aggression’, went into play. By the best way, it was included within the ICC jurisdiction solely after perennial discussions. By the point the Rome Statute was signed in 1998 the events had not managed to develop a legally acceptable definition of the time period ‘aggression’. This concern was submitted to the Meeting, which in 2010 drafted amendments into the Statute. These included definition of a circle of individuals responsible for this crime and the process of bringing them to legal responsibility within the Hague Prison Court docket. But the authorized requirements launched weren’t common.
Pressurised by the US the Particular Navy Operation to defend Donbass within the paperwork of the UN Basic Meeting was known as ‘aggression’ by the arithmetic majority of states (United Nations Basic Meeting Decision ES-11/1 ‘Aggression in opposition to Ukraine’ dated 2 March 2022; United Nations Basic Meeting Decision ES-11/2 ‘Humanitarian penalties of the aggression in opposition to Ukraine’ dated 24 March 2022 and different paperwork of the UN Basic Meeting). Contribution was made by different organisations underneath Western management, particularly the Worldwide Financial Fund (the IMF)²⁹, the Institute of Worldwide Law³⁰ and others. Lastly, in March 2023 the Hague Prison Court docket obediently introduced the issuance of arrest warrants for the President of the Russian Federation and the Russian Commissioner for kids’s rights.
From the authorized standpoint this transfer didn’t face up to any criticism. The Western international locations use the time period ‘aggression’ purely formally, within the which means assigned to it within the decision of the 1974 UN Basic Meeting. In line with the decision, aggression is ‘… using armed pressure by a State in opposition to the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of one other State, or in every other method inconsistent with the Constitution of the United Nations…’ which ‘…provides rise to worldwide accountability’³¹ (emphasis added). Making use of this definition to the Particular Navy Operation, the Western states ignore main problems with the actual fact and legislation, to start with, the abovementioned upheaval in Kyiv in 2014 impressed by Washington, which was in apparent violation of article 2 (7) of the UN Constitution (on non-interference right into a state’s inner affairs). After this coup d’état Ukraine de facto was now not a sovereign state.
One other circumstance ignored by the West as a complete is that using armed forces permissible underneath the worldwide legislation (by the use of self-defence, together with preventive) will not be aggression. But the primary flaw within the worldwide authorized place of the Western states is extra critical: they ignore the truth that in keeping with the UN Constitution establishing the truth of ‘aggression’ and taking respective actions is solely the prerogative of the UN Safety Council, together with affirmative vote of its 5 everlasting members, however not one other physique, be it with the UN or not, or one other worldwide organisation.
Nonetheless, the states that are nonetheless events to the Rome Statute didn’t implement the ICC’s resolution as effectively. Russia’s President visited certainly one of these international locations, Mongolia, early September 2024³². The go to proceeded in a heat and pleasant environment and ended fairly efficiently. The Hague Prison Court docket received nearly hysterical. It instantly cracked down on Mongolia, stating that it failed to fulfill its commitments underneath the Rome Statute because it had not arrested Russia’s President, thus failing to adjust to the ICC’s cooperation request.
In line with the ICC, events to the Rome Statute shall arrest individuals for whom the Court docket has issued warrants, ‘no matter their official standing or nationality’. On this context the assertion made by the ICC that it performs its capabilities in respect of ‘gross violations of the basics of worldwide legislation’³³ sounds fairly cynical. But interfering with the official duties of the pinnacle of a sovereign state which is a everlasting member of the Safety Council the officers of the Hague Prison Court docket irritate the chance of failure to go choices by way of the united states reacting to threats to world peace.
Within the doc of the Hague Prison Court docket accusing Mongolia of non-compliance by Mongolia with the request to cooperate underneath the Rome Statute it’s said that article 98(1) allegedly doesn’t amend article 27(2) or present for any exceptions, i.e. within the Court docket’s opinion, the Statute doesn’t present for ‘the waiver of the immunity’ for heads of sovereign states. In line with the Court docket, every other interpretation would render the obligations of member states ‘mindless’ and the general Court docket’s system ‘futile’, ‘opposite to the precept of effectiveness (ut res magis valeat quam pereat)’³⁴, stemming from article 31 of the Vienna Conference on the Regulation of Treaties, ‘in keeping with which treaties must be interpreted in order to make sure their efficient implementation’³⁵. ‘Futility’ is to not be disputed. The Hague Prison Court docket has displayed this high quality time and again.
As for the effectiveness precept, it must be stated that the argument given by the Court docket is distorted. In the midst of interpretation of worldwide treaties an interpreter ‘should give which means and impact to all of the phrases of the treaty’ and ‘an interpreter will not be free to undertake a studying that will lead to lowering entire clauses or paragraphs of a treaty to redundancy or inutility’³⁶.
It must be talked about that earlier the ICC recognised that there’s an ‘inherent pressure’ between articles 27(2) and 98(1) of the Statute³⁷, this pressure being substantively analysed within the doctrine³⁸. All of the abovementioned clearly demonstrates authorized and technical flaws within the Statute³⁹, which make this already imperfect instrument completely inapplicable.
In its Determination on Mongolia the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber said that article 34 of the Vienna Conference ‘is irrelevant to the matter at hand (whether or not the non-member events are sure by the Statute – comment), for the reason that Court docket will not be aiming to impose obligations contained within the Statute to non-States Events, however is relatively searching for the cooperation of States Events in instances in opposition to people who allegedly dedicated crimes underneath article 5 of the Statute on the territory of a State the place the Court docket has jurisdiction’. But this place is invalid as effectively: non-provision of immunity by get together to the Statute to the pinnacle of state which isn’t get together to the Statute is extension of the Statute to such state, because the latter has the precise to say immunities for his or her senior officers, whereas the host nation has the duty to grant such immunities. If the latter doesn’t try this by advantage of article 27.2 of the Statute, it shall both be thought of to be in violation of customary worldwide legislation or extending the rule of article 27.2 of the Statute to the third state and its senior officers. There isn’t a third approach.
The ICC displayed important self-confidence when confirmed that ‘any debatable bilateral obligation that Mongolia might owe to the Russian Federation to respect any relevant immunity that worldwide legislation might enable to Heads of State will not be able to displacing the duty that Mongolia owes to the Court docket, which is tasked with exercising its jurisdiction…⁴⁰. That’s true: any worldwide acts are inferior to the Statute, within the opinion of the biased commentators from the Court docket.
In its correspondence with the Hague Prison Court docket Mongolia referred to the customary authorized rule of immunities of the heads of states and the Worldwide Court docket of Justice’s (‘ICJ’) judgment within the Arrest Warrant case as of 11 April 2000, which confirmed its existence. In response the Hague Court docket reiterated its place: ‘whereas private immunities function in relations between States, they don’t defend people, together with Heads of State, from prosecution by worldwide legal courts’, justifying this by stating that the ICC ‘is inherently unbiased of States, strictly neutral and acts within the common pursuits of the worldwide group’⁴¹.
All these arguments are completely politicised and legally null and void. Nonetheless, the Court docket pathetically said that Mongolia prevented the Court docket ‘…from exercising its capabilities and powers…’ and ‘did not adjust to its worldwide obligations underneath the Statute…’⁴², thus rejecting all Mongolia’s objections.
It must be talked about that underneath article 98.2 of the Rome Statute ‘the Court docket might not proceed with a request for give up which might require the requested State to behave inconsistently with its obligations underneath worldwide agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to give up an individual of that State to the Court docket, except the Court docket can first receive the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the give up’. The 2019 Treaty on Pleasant Relations and Complete Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and Mongolia (entered into pressure in September 2020) is relevant on this sense. In line with article 4 of this treaty Russia and Mongolia shall ‘abstain from participation in any actions or assist of such actions directed in opposition to the opposite get together’.
All this judicial fuss didn’t have any important penalties for Mongolia or Russia. The ICC Meeting decides itself on the measures to be taken in opposition to the ‘disobedient’. The Statute doesn’t present for any sanctions in opposition to a member state which did not comprehensively cooperate with the ICC in the middle of exercising its capabilities. In observe such sanctions have by no means been imposed. The top of Sudan Omar al-Bashir in seven years after the ICC issued its first arrest warrant in 2009 visited greater than 20 international locations, together with the ICC members, but in none of them was he arrested⁴³. No measures have been taken in opposition to these states, though the arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir was issued within the framework of the case initiated by the UN Safety Council (which, not like the ICC, has the precise to use worldwide authorized sanctions).
This proves to what extent the Court docket and its choices are futile. Nonetheless, one shouldn’t underestimate the scope and doable penalties of the ‘authorized battle’ the Western international locations proceed to struggle in opposition to Russia utilizing worldwide justice, together with different hostile actions and illegal restrictions. In essence, the ICC observe is nearly able to legally justify kidnapping officers who get pleasure from immunities from the territories of the international locations which aren’t events to the Rome Statute, extra in order that the ICC has not solely turn out to be a funnel wherein any official of any state could also be drawn, in case there’s a political order, but additionally a commonplace device of political wrestle. To say nothing of arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, the state of affairs with the start of the ICC’s investigation into the state of affairs within the Republic of the Philippines and the ensuing arrest on 11 March 2025 and give up to the ICC of the ex-President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte is sort of exemplary.
On 15 September 2021 the Pre-Trial Chamber authorised the ICC Prosecutor’s in- vestigation of the state of affairs within the Republic of the Philippines in respect of crimes which fall underneath the ICC jurisdiction which allegedly have been dedicated within the nation between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019 within the framework of the so-called ‘battle on medication’ campaign⁴⁴. This resolution and additional occasions are exceptional within the following respect. First, the ICC didn’t have jurisdiction ratione temporis in respect of this case on the whole, because the investigation was authorised by the Chamber on 15 September 2021, whereas the Philippines withdrew from the Statute on 17 March 2019. Nonetheless, this didn’t forestall the ICC judges from discovering the idea for this jurisdiction close to its personal observe of interpretation of artwork.127 of the Rome Statute⁴⁵ basing on the precept of ‘if you would like it, you possibly can’. Second, the arrest and give up to the ICC of the ex-President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte weren’t the popularity of the ICC jurisdiction by the Philippines, now not a celebration to the Statute, however a give up by the Marcos clan (Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr. is the present President of the Philippines) of their political opponent from the Duterte clan⁴⁶, i.e. the ICC in truth grew to become a device of clan rivalry within the territory of the Philippines. Thus, media opinion that the authorization of the investigation within the Philippines is ‘casting a darkish shadow on the flexibility of the court docket to do its job independently’⁴⁷ fairly precisely displays the transformation of the very essence of the Court docket: from an instrument of justice it has became an instrument of soiled politics.
It’s unclear what lawlessness we’ll witness additional on. The West, which is rapidly dropping its positions on the earth and isn’t capable of impose its will on nearly all of the humankind, goes for broke and can cease at nothing. This hazard shall be considered. I, for one, have already speculated on what might comply with the enforcement of an unlawful resolution of the ICC in respect of the pinnacle of state which isn’t get together to the ICC. The very enforcement of such resolution could also be thought of as casus belli in respect of the international locations which participated in it. It’s useless to debate how harmful such choices could also be in respect of the pinnacle of state of a nuclear energy and everlasting member of the UN Safety Council. To say nothing of the truth that individuals in command of such choices might and shall be prosecuted by investigative and judicial our bodies of the nation the pinnacle of which is illegally delivered to legal responsibility.
6.
It must be remembered that amongst international locations which accuse Russia of ‘aggression’ aren’t solely the USA⁴⁸. Related pronouncements have been made by the NATO member states⁴⁹, in addition to most members of the Council of Europe and the seven most superior economies, G7⁵⁰. The African union joined the efforts to accuse Russia of violating the worldwide legislation, encroachment of ‘territorial integrity and nationwide sovereignty of Ukraine’⁵¹.
But one shouldn’t be glad that resolutions of the UN Basic Meeting aren’t formally legally binding. In observe in financial arbitration and judicial proceedings in opposition to Russia and Russian residents references to such paperwork are essential for the ‘internal conviction’ of the choose or arbitrator.
Even ungrounded accusations require exhaustive reply. On this respect I contemplate it essential to reiterate our place in respect of the so-called ‘aggression’ of which the West persistently accuses Russia, and the ICC actions as makes an attempt to present authorized impact to those accusations.
Allow us to summarise the above.
First. After the upheaval in 2014 the facility in Kyiv was taken by a dependent political regime underneath full management of the Western international locations. A part of former Ukraine, intoxicated and managed by it, de facto is now not a sovereign state. Due to this fact, Russia’s defence of Donbass, which didn’t recognise the coup and was attacked by the unlawful 2014 Kyiv authorities, can’t be legally certified as ‘aggression’.
Second. Beneath the UN Constitution establishing the actual fact of ‘aggression’ and appearing on this respect is the prerogative of the UN Safety Council (together with affirmative vote of 5 states that are its everlasting members). No different physique, be it with the UN or not, or one other worldwide organisation have such powers. Their statements aren’t legally grounded and null.
Third. Encroachment of the Hague Prison Court docket on limiting sovereignty of a state which is a everlasting member of the UN Safety Council (calls for of the arrest of the pinnacle of this state, thus interfering with the official capabilities) is to be certified as an offence in opposition to worldwide legislation. Firstly as a result of the UN Safety Council bears major accountability for upkeep of worldwide peace and safety (article 24 of the UN Constitution).
Fourth. Russia will not be get together to the Rome statute of 1998, on the idea of which the Worldwide Prison Court docket was established. In 2016 Russia refused to be get together to this worldwide treaty. Due to this fact, the Statute doesn’t create any obligations for our nation.
Fifth. The actions of the Hague Prison Court docket and its place contradict to the precept of ‘pacta tertiis nес nocent nес prosunt’ (a treaty doesn’t create obligations or rights for a 3rd state with out its consent) enshrined in customary worldwide legislation and article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Conference on the Regulation of Treaties.
Sixth. In line with the Rome Statute, the concept behind issuing an arrest warrant is that the ICC requires a chance to additional oblige the Statute member states, particularly, to arrest the particular person for whom the warrant has been issued and give up this particular person to the Court docket (article 58 of the Rome Statute). But in case this particular person enjoys immunity as an official of the state which isn’t get together to the Statute, and the Hague Prison Court docket has not solicited help from such state, issuance of such a war- rant and the Court docket’s request to a member state to arrest the abovementioned particular person contradict to article 98 of the Statute.
Seventh. The President of the Russian Federation, being the present head of a sovereign state, is totally immune from overseas legal justice: each ratione materiae⁵² and ratione personae⁵³. In case there isn’t a categorical waiver of this immunity the worldwide judicial our bodies haven’t any jurisdiction over the pinnacle of the sovereign state.
Eighth. In line with the judgment of the worldwide Court docket of Justice dated 14 February 2002 within the case ‘Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000’, ‘in worldwide legislation it’s firmly established that, as additionally diplomatic and consular brokers, sure holders of high-ranking workplace in a State, such because the Head of State, Head of Authorities and Minister for International Affairs, get pleasure from immunities from jurisdiction in different States, each civil and legal’⁵⁴. The truth that this rule of worldwide legislation operates additionally in instances when there come up a query of chance of arrest the pinnacle of the state which isn’t get together to the Rome Statute by a state which is get together to the Rome Statute is recognised within the doctrine as well⁵⁵. Furthermore, in a single case the ICC recognised the actual fact there are not any exceptions to this rule in respect to the conditions when the state operates in its name⁵⁶.
Article 27 of the Rome Statute, within the which means of which immunities of an official shall not impede jurisdiction in respect of this particular person, contradicts to the established customary worldwide legislation. That this doc permits for legal prosecution of cur- hire heads of sovereign states doesn’t adjust to basic ideas of worldwide legislation enshrined within the UN Constitution, firstly, the precept of the sovereign equality of all its members, non-involvement into within the inner politics of one other state.
Ninth. As of February 2025 125 states are events to the Rome Statute⁵⁷ (within the UN there are 193 members)⁵⁸. Regardless of their quantity, the ICC doesn’t characterize the worldwide group of states as a complete and doesn’t act in its identify. Three out of 5 everlasting members of the UN Safety Council aren’t events to it (Russia, China and the USA), together with industrialised and densely populated Asian international locations (India, Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia), many Arab countries⁵⁹.
Tenth. Judges, prosecutors and different officers who took illegal choices might and shall be prosecuted for crimes stipulated in the Russian legal legislation.
7.
In respect of the place said above an inexpensive query arises: what’s in retailer for the worldwide legal justice on the whole? Russian legal professionals ought to voice complete and well-based skilled criticism of the ICC choices in any respect boards. They need to current worldwide authorized place of Russia in respect of the Particular Navy Operation, Ukrainian battle and different related difficult points to the worldwide authorized group, media and folks in numerous international locations. They need to make clear controversies, and try this actively and incessantly. They need to reiterate our dedication to the UN Constitution and to start with ideas of sovereign equality of all states, non- interference with their inner affairs. They need to guarantee positive that particular officers of the Hague Prison Court docket who violate these ideas be taken to legal responsibility in accordance with worldwide and Russian nationwide legislation.
It appears solely doable to develop on the regional degree (for example, within the framework of BRICS) an idea of building a global authorized physique as an alternative choice to the Hague Prison Court docket. This new judicial physique in BRICS might reiterate the frequent dedication of its member states to the UN Constitution ideas, together with the ideas of immunity of heads of sovereign states from any overseas jurisdiction and non-interference into inner affairs of the states, together with by the use of illegal overseas instructing of opposition leaders.
As for the ICC, sadly, at this level we have to recognise its complete inefficiency in performing its principal job – bringing to legal responsibility all these responsible of genocide, aggression, battle crimes, those that escaped punishment underneath nationwide legislation. All of them, together with residents of Western international locations and NATO member states. After all, it’s uncertain that the Hague Prison Court docket in its current kind and function will make efforts to this finish. That’s the reason it shall sink into oblivion.
But a thirst for justice that unites all individuals on the earth is stronger than any sanctions, stress, hypocrisy and lies. And the worldwide legislation developed by the worldwide group is stronger than the rule of pressure. If the Hague Court docket is irreversibly flawed at current, the states will discover a chance to ascertain a special inter- nationwide legal court docket which shall be spared of those flaws. Its constitution shall be based mostly upon all universally recognised guidelines of worldwide legislation, together with the rule of absolute immunity of senior officers. Its jurisdiction could also be prolonged to the crimes of genocide, battle crimes, crimes in opposition to humanity, and terrorist assaults. Such assaults are sometimes pre- pared and dedicated on the territories of two or extra states. Worldwide cooperation within the framework of this new physique will be capable of forestall them.
There’s a hope that this new court docket will be capable of attain the objectives declared within the Rome Statute of the ICC which the ICC itself proved unable to realize.
¹ See: Schabas W. A. Chapter 1: The dynamics of the Rome Convention in The Elgar Companion to the Worldwide Prison Court docket. Ed. by M. deGuzman and V. Oosterveld. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Restricted, 2020. P. 4–5. See additionally: Summaries of the Work of the Worldwide Regulation Fee: Draft code of crimes in opposition to the peace and safety of mankind (Half II) — together with the draft Statute for a global legal court docket // Worldwide Regulation Fee. Accessible at: https://authorized.un.org/ilc/summaries/7_4.shtml (accessed: 03.02.2025); Worldwide legal accountability of people and entities engaged in illicit trafficking in narcotic medication throughout nationwide frontiers and different transnational legal actions: Institution of a global legal court docket with jurisdiction over such crimes // World Authorized Data Institute. Accessible at: http://www.worldlii.org/int/different/UNGA/1989/52.pdf (accessed: 03.02.2025).
² “Nobody is choose in his personal case” (In Latin).
³ Many publications have been written in regards to the ICC. For the newest publications see: The Previous, Current and Way forward for the Worldwide Prison Court docket. Ed. by A. Heinze, V. E. Dittrich. Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Tutorial EPublisher, 2021. XXI, 783 p.; Commentary on the Regulation of the Worldwide Prison Court docket: The Statute. Vol. 1. Eds.: M. Klamberg, J. Nilsson, A. Angotti. 2nd ed. Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Tutorial Epublisher, 2023. 1104 p.
⁴ See: Order of the President of the Russian Federation No. 361-rp dated 16.11.2016 “On the intention of the Russian Federation to not be get together to the Rome Statute of the Worldwide Prison Court docket” // President of Russia. Accessible at: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/financial institution/41387 (accessed: 04.02.2025). Additionally see the communication of the federal government of the Russian Federation to the UN Secretary Basic acquired 30.11.2016: Rome Statute of the Worldwide Prison Court docket: Rome, 17 July 1998: [status as at: 14.02.2025 10:15:47 EDT] // United Nations Treaty Assortment. Accessible at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&clang=_en#9 (accessed: 14.02.2025).
⁵ See, for instance: Worldwide Regulation and the Struggle in opposition to Crime / pref. A. V. Zmeevskii, Yu. M. Kolosov. M., 1997. (In Russian)
⁶ W. Schabas writes in regards to the ICC as follows: “Solely few concluded instances matter. Lots of these accused have been insignificant individuals in little-known conflicts. With sentences of 12 or 13 years in jail it’s arduous to imagine that the Court docket offers with ‘those that bear biggest accountability’ for ‘most critical crimes of concern to the worldwide group as a complete’‘ (Schabas W. A. Op. cit. P. 19).
⁷ Bosco D. Why is the Worldwide Prison Court docket selecting solely on Africa? (March 29, 2013) // The Washington Publish. Accessible at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-the-international-criminal-court-picking-only-on-africa/2013/03/29/cb9bf5da-96f7-11e2-97cd-3d8c1afe4f0f_story.html (accessed: 04.02.2025).
⁸ See: Bachmann S.-D. D., Sowatey-Adjei N. A. The African Union-ICC Controversy Earlier than the ICJ: A Approach Ahead to Strengthen Worldwide Prison Justice? // Washington Worldwide Regulation Journal. Vol. 29. 2020. No. 2. P. 249.
⁹ Ibid. P. 249–250.
¹⁰ The Philippines’ membership within the ICC involves an finish // Coalition for the Worldwide Prison Court docket. Accessible at: https://coalitionfortheicc.org/information/20190315/philippines-leaves-icc#:~:textual content=Aspercent20ofpercent2017percent20Marchpercent2Cpercent20the,afterpercent20Burundipercent20withdrewpercent20inpercent202017 (accessed: 04.02.2025).
¹¹ For battle crimes in Afghanistan in additional element, see: Ning Y. How US evades accountability for battle crimes in Afghanistan // World Occasions. Accessible at: https://www.globaltimes.cn/web page/202109/1235240.shtml (accessed: 14.02.2025).
¹² Pre-Trial Chamber II: State of affairs within the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, No. ICC-02/17 // Worldwide Prison Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-02/17-33 (accessed: 04.02.2025).
¹³ The Appeals Chamber: State of affairs within the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, No. ICC-02/17 OA4 // Worldwide Prison Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_00828.PDF (accessed: 04.02.2025).
¹⁴ Worldwide Prison Court docket: U. S. Sanctions in Response to Investigation of Struggle Crimes in Afghanistan // Congressional Analysis Service. Accessible at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11428 (accessed: 04.02.2025).
¹⁵ Worldwide Prison Court docket: U. S. Sanctions in Response to Investigation of Struggle Crimes in Afghanistan // Congressional Analysis Service. Accessible at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11428 (accessed: 04.02.2025).
¹⁶ Political and authorized students haven’t reached consensus over the time period ‘sanctions’ (see: Pyatibratov I. S. Sanctions and unilateral restrictive measures: The issue of delineation of phrases and id of phenomena Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta. 2020. Vol. 10, no. 6. P. 64. (In Russian)). Nonetheless, using “sanctions” in respect of restrictive measures taken by states unilaterally with no respective resolution of the UN Safety Council has been repeatedly criticised by some students (see, for example: Ryzhova M. V. Financial sanctions in fashionable worldwide legislation PhD in Regulation thesis summary Kazan. P. 8. (In Russian); Kritskiy Okay. V. The phrases “worldwide sanctions” and “unilateral restrictive measures”. Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava. 2016. No. 2. P. 2. (In Russian); Kritskiy Okay. V. Sanctions and unilateral restrictive measures in fashionable worldwide legislation PhD in Regulation thesis Moscow. P. 10. (In Russian); Alekseeva D. G., Alimova Y. O., Barzilova I. S. Regulation underneath sanctions / M. V. Mazhorina, B. A. Shakhnazarov (eds). Moscow, Prospekt Publ. P. 93–94. (In Russian). This criticism is justified: whereas the time period “sanction” is seen as a coercive measure utilized within the case of an offence, i.e. a lawful measure, restrictive measures utilized by states unilaterally with no resolution of the UN Safety Council aren’t at all times lawful. On this respect, it’s at the very least inaccurate to name the latter ‘sanctions’ within the authorized sense. It’s no coincidence that coercive measures adopted by the UN Safety Council are sometimes known as ‘sanctions’ in UN paperwork, whereas regimes created by these measures are known as ‘sanctions regimes’ (see: Doc A/56/10: Report of the Worldwide Regulation Fee on the work of its fifty-third session (23 April – 1 June and a pair of July – 10 August 2001) // Yearbook of the Worldwide Regulation Fee. 2001. Vol. II. P. 2. p. 78; Decision 2170 (2014), adopted by the Safety Council at its 7242nd assembly, on 15 August 2014 (S/RES/2170). Accessible at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/report/777420/recordsdata/S_RES_2170percent282014percent29-RU.pdf?ln=ru (accessed: 06.03.2025); Subsidiary Organs of the United Nations Safety Council // Reality Sheets. Accessible at: https://principal.un.org/securitycouncil/websites/default/recordsdata/subsidiary_organs_series_7sep23_.pdf (accessed: 06.03.2025)). Quite the opposite, in sure UN acts the time period ‘sanctions’ will not be used to check with unilateral coercive measures (see, for example, Decision “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures”, adopted by the Basic Meeting on 19 December 2016 (A/RES/71/193). Accessible at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/report/857550/recordsdata/A_RES_71_193-RU.pdf?ln=ru (accessed: 06.03.2025)). Nonetheless, in political and journalistic discourses such measures are generally known as “sanctions” (see: Gevorgyan Okay. “Unilateral Sanctions” and Worldwide Regulation // The Worldwide Affairs. Accessible at: https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/materials/720 (accessed: 06.03.2025). (In Russian)). On this article, for the sake of comfort, the time period “sanctions” is used inter alia to outline unilateral coercive measures utilized by states with no resolution of the UN Safety Council.
¹⁷ Blocking Property of Sure Individuals Related to the Worldwide Prison Court docket Designations // Workplace of International Property Management. Accessible at: https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20200902 (accessed: 05.02.2025); US imposes sanctions on prime worldwide legal court docket officers // The Guardian. Accessible at: https://www.theguardian.com/legislation/2020/sep/02/us-sanctions-international-criminal-court-fatou-bensouda (accessed: 05.02.2025). Later Govt Order N 13928 was repealed (see: Govt Order 14022 of April 1, 2021 “Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Worldwide Prison Court docket” // Federal Register. Accessible at: https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/57411/obtain?inline (accessed: 05.02.2025)).
¹⁸ Imposing Sanctions on the Worldwide Prison Court docket: Govt order, February 6, 2025 // The White Home. Accessible at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/ (accessed: 14.02.2025).
¹⁹ Ibid.
²⁰ Ibid.
²¹ Ibid.
²² State of affairs in Ukraine: ICC judges concern arrest warrants in opposition to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova // Worldwide Prison Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/information/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and (accessed: 05.02.2025). Additionally see: Issues of Legality of the Worldwide Prison Court docket: Issues of Legality of the Worldwide Prison Court docket (Opinion of the Worldwide Regulation Advisory Board underneath the Ministry of International Affairs of the Russian Federation), // Ministry of International Affairs of the Russian Federation. Accessible at: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/legal_problems_of-international_cooperation/1949021/ (accessed: 05.02.2025); Opinion of the Worldwide Regulation Advisory Board underneath the Ministry of International Affairs of the Russian Federation: Issues of Legality of the Worldwide Prison Court docket [translated by grad. students V. V. Pchelintseva and A. M. Korzhenyak) // Moscow Journal of Inter- national Law. 2024. no. 2. P. 92–104.
²³ Being the main subjects of international law, the states may on the basis of treaties between them establish a derivative subject of international law, for instance, an intergovernmental organisation, an international judiciary etc. The competence of this derivative subject is defined by the states which established it. See: Shaw M. N. International Law. 6th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. P. 1303. In this respect J. Klabbers rightfully said about international organisations: “Organisations are creatures of their member states…” (Klabbers J. International Law. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. P. 92).
²⁴ The Appeals Chamber: Situation in Darfur, Sudan: in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir: Judgment in the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal, No. ICC-02/05-01/09 OA2, 6 May 2019, para. 114 // International Criminal Court. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2019_02856.PDF (accessed: 14.02.2025).
²⁵ See: ibid, para. 117.
²⁶ The existence of this convention in international law was conformed by the International Court of Justice. See: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 3, para. 51.
²⁷ See: Document A/6309/Rev.1: Reports of the International Law Commission on the second part of its seventeenth session and on its eighteenth session // Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966. Vol. II. New York: United Nations, 1967. P. 226.
²⁸ Preparation for the non-constitutional upheaval in Kyiv, instructions given to the rebels by the US Embassy are comprehensively described in the book by former Ukrainian PM N. Azarov, who earlier worked with the lawfully elected Ukrainian President, V. Yanukovych. See: Azarov N. Ukraine at a Crossroads. Notes from the Prime Minister Moscow, Veche Publ, 2015. 512 p. (In Russian)
²⁹ A specialised UN institution Russia is a member of. For the IMF see its site: About the IMF // International Monetary Fund. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/About (accessed: 05.02.2025).
³⁰ A non-governmental organisation. Established in 1873. For more details see its site: About the Institute // Institut de Droit International. Available at: https://www.idi-iil.org/en/a-propos/ (accessed: 05.02.2025).
³¹ See its articles 1, 5 (Definition of aggression: [appendix to UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) dated 14.12.1974]. Accessible at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/report/190983/recordsdata/A_ RES_3314percent28XXIXpercent29-RU.pdf?ln=ru (accessed: 14.02.2025)).
³² Official go to to Mongolia // President of Russia. Accessible at: http://www.kremlin.ru/occasions/president/journeys/75016 (accessed: 05.02.2025).
³³ ICC: Mongolia’s refusal to arrest Putin was submitted for consideration of the Meeting // United Nations Organisation. Alailable at: https://information.un.org/ru/story/2024/10/1457701 (accessed: 05.02.2025).
³⁴ “In order that the matter might flourish relatively than perish” (In Latin).
³⁵ Pre-Trial Chamber II: State of affairs in Ukraine. Discovering underneath article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the non-compliance by Mongolia with the request by the Court docket to cooperate within the arrest and give up of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and referral to the Meeting of States Events, No. ICC-01/22, 24 October 2024, para. 34. // Worldwide Prison Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/websites/default/recordsdata/CourtRecords/0902ebd1809d1971.pdf (accessed: 05.02.2025).
³⁶ Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Sure Dairy Merchandise: Report of the Appellate Physique (adopted on 12 January 2000), AB-1999-8 (WT/DS98/AB/R), para. 80.
³⁷ Pre-Trial Chamber I. State of affairs in Darfur, Sudan: The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No. ICC-02/05-01/09, 13 December 2011, para. 37. // Worldwide Prison Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/8c9d80/pdf (accessed: 05.02.2025).
³⁸ See, for example: Ispolinov A. S. Anatomy of a Disaster: Issues of Normative Legitimacy of an Worldwide Prison Court docket // Zakon. 2024. no. 2. P. 130–131. (In Russian); Kjeldgaard-Pedersen A. Is the High quality of the ICC’s Authorized Reasoning an Impediment to Its Capability to Deter Worldwide Crimes? // iCourts: iCourts Working Paper Collection. 2020. no. 191. P. 15–17. Accessible at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Supply.cfm/SSRN_ID3570447_code2133408.pdf?abstractid=3570447&mirid=1&sort=2 (accessed: 05.02.2025); Tladi D. The ICC Selections on Chad and Malawi: On Cooperation, Immunities, and Article 98 // Journal of Worldwide Prison Justice. Vol. 11. 2013. no. 1. P. 199–221; Van Alebeek R. The Immunity of States and Their Officers in Worldwide Prison Regulation and Worldwide Human Rights Regulation. Oxford; New York: Oxford College Press, 2008. P. 278.
³⁹ Students’ opinion that ‘… the Court docket’s structure is severely flawed’ appears to be like well-grounded (Schabas W. A. Op. cit. P. 19).
⁴⁰ Pre-Trial Chamber II: State of affairs in Ukraine. Discovering underneath article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the non-compliance by Mongolia with the request by the Court docket to cooperate within the arrest and give up of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and referral to the Meeting of States Events, No. ICC-01/22, 24 October 2024, para. 28.
⁴¹ Ibid, paras. 6, 29, 30.
⁴² See: ibid, para. 38 and findings.
⁴³ See: ICC arrest warrant? No worries for Sudan’s Bashir who visited 22 international locations in 7 years // World Tribune: Window on the Actual World. Accessible at: https://www.worldtribune.com/icc-arrest-warrant-no-worries-for-sudans-bashir-who-visited-22-countries-in-7-years/ (accessed: 14.02.2025); Nuba Experiences. Sudan’s president has made 74 journeys the world over within the seven years he’s been needed for battle crimes // Quartz. Accessible at: https://qz.com/africa/630571/sudans-president-has-made-74-trips-across-the-world-in-the-seven-years-hes-been-wanted-for-war-crimes (accessed: 14.02.2025).
⁴⁴ Pre-Trial Chamber I: State of affairs within the Republic of the Philippines: Determination on the Prosecutor’s request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to Article 15(3) of the Statute, No. ICC-01/21 // Worldwide Prison Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/websites/default/recordsdata/CourtRecords/CR2021_08044.PDF (accessed: 18.03.2025).
⁴⁵ See: Ibid, para. 111.
⁴⁶ Filatov S. Duterte’s arrest and its implications for the Philippines, the US and China // The Worldwide Affairs. Accessible at: https://interaffairs.ru/information/present/50683 (accessed: 18.03.2025); Smith T. The ICC caught in clan rivalry in Philippines // Justiceinfo.web. Accessible at: https://www.justiceinfo.web/en/140756-icc-caught-clan-rivalry-philippines.html (accessed: 18.03.2025).
⁴⁷ Smith T. Op. cit.
⁴⁸ US President Joe Biden accused Russia of violation of the UN Constitution because it allegedly ‘waged a brutal useless battle’ in opposition to Ukraine (‘President Biden … accused Russia of violating the United Nations worldwide constitution in its “brutal, useless battle” in opposition to Ukraine’). See: Biden in UN speech accuses Russia of “extraordinarily important” violation of worldwide constitution // Fox Information. Accessible at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-un-speech-accuses-russia-extremely-significant-violation-international-charter (accessed: 05.02.2025).
⁴⁹ The World Reacts to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine // Lawfare. Accessible at: https://www.lawfare-media.org/article/world-reacts-russias-invasion-ukraine (accessed: 05.02.2025).
⁵⁰ G7 Leaders’ Assertion on the invasion of Ukraine by armed forces of the Russian Federation // Council of the European Union. Accessible at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/02/24/g7-leaders-statement-on-the-invasion-of-ukraine-by-armed-forces-of-the-russian-federation/ (accessed: 14.02.2025).
⁵¹ Macky Sall, Chair of the African Union and President of Senegal, and Moussa Faki Mahamat, Chairpersonn of the African Union Fee, particularly, known as on the Russian Federation to ‘… imperatively respect worldwide legislation, the territorial integrity and nationwide sovereignty of Ukraine’ (Assertion from Chair of the African Union, H. E President Macky Sall and Chairperson of the AU Fee H.E Moussa Faki Mahamat, on the state of affairs in Ukraine // African Union. Accessible at: https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20220224/african-union-statement-situation-ukraine (accessed: 05.02.2025)).
⁵² Beneath ‘ratione materiae’ immunity we perceive immunity from overseas legal justice in respect of an official of the state concerning actions this particular person executes inside the framework of the mandate and which will be outlined as ‘formal actions’.
⁵³ Subjective scope of ‘ratione personae’ immunity: the pinnacle of state, head of presidency and the minister of overseas affairs are immune from legal justice of a overseas state. ‘Ratione personae’ immunity is recognised routinely, in accordance with the rule of worldwide legislation, in respect of public authorities which characterize the state in worldwide relations. This immunity is utilized in respect of all actions (whether or not non-public or formal) dedicated by the representatives of the state.
⁵⁴ Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Experiences 2002, p. 3, para. 51.
⁵⁵ See, for example: Ispolinov A. S. Attempting on the Ring of Omnipotence: The Worldwide Prison Court docket and the Immunities of Heads of State // Rossiiskii iuridicheskii zhurnal. 2023. No. 2. P. 40, 52–53. (In Russian); Akande D. Worldwide Regulation Immunities and the Worldwide Prison Court docket // The American Journal of Worldwide Regulation. 2004. Vol. 98. no. 3. P. 410–411, 421.
⁵⁶ Within the resolution on the non-compliance by South Africa with the request by the Court docket for the arrest and give up of Omar Al-Bashir the Pre-Trial Chamber, referring to the identical paragraph 51 of the ICJ judgment dated 14 February 2002 in case ‘Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000’, said: “The Chamber is unable to determine a rule in customary worldwide legislation that will exclude immunity for Heads of State when their arrest is looked for worldwide crimes by one other State, even when the arrest is sought on behalf of a global court docket, together with, particularly, this Court docket (Writer’s notice: the ICC)” (Pre-Trial Chamber II. State of affairs in Darfur, Sudan: within the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir: Determination underneath article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the non-compliance by South Africa with the request by the Court docket for the arrest and give up of Omar Al-Bashir, No. ICC-02/05-01/09, 6 July 2017, para. 68 // Worldwide Prison Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68ffc1/pdf (accessed: 15.02.2025)).
⁵⁷ The States Events to the Rome Statute // Worldwide Prison Court docket. Accessible at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties (accessed: 05.02.2025).
⁵⁸ Constitution of the United Nations: Standing as at: 14-02-2025 10:15:47 EDT // United Nations Treaty Assortment. Accessible at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-1&chapter=1&clang=_en (accessed: 14.02.2025).
⁵⁹ From the attitude of the inhabitants figures in non-member states this is almost all of the Earth’s inhabitants.
References
Akande, Dapo. 2004. Worldwide Regulation Immunities and the Worldwide Prison Court docket. The American Journal of Worldwide Regulation 98 (3): 407–433.
Alekseeva, Diana G., Yana O., Alimova, Inna S., Barzilova et. al. 2023. Regulation underneath sanctions. Mazhorina M. V., Shakhnazarov B. A. (eds). Moscow, Prospekt Publ. (In Russian)
Azarov, Nikolay. 2015. Ukraine at a Crossroads. Notes from the Prime Minister. Moscow, Veche Publ. (In Russian)
Bachmann, Sascha-Dominick D., Sowatey-Adjei, Naa A. 2020. The African Union-ICC Controversy Earlier than the ICJ: A Approach Ahead to Strengthen Worldwide Prison Justice? Washington Worldwide Regulation Journal 29 (2): 247–301.
Bosco, David. 2013. Why is the Worldwide Prison Court docket selecting solely on Africa? The Washington Publish. March 29. Accessible at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-the-international-criminal-court-picking-only-on-africa/2013/03/29/cb9bf5da-96f7-11e2-97cd-3d8c1afe4f0f_story.html (accessed: 04.02.2025).
Commentary on the Regulation of the Worldwide Prison Court docket: The Statute. Vol. 1. 2023. Klamberg M., Nilsson J., Angotti A. (eds). 2nd ed. Brussels, Torkel Opsahl Tutorial Epublisher. 1104 p.
Filatov S. Duterte’s arrest and its implications for the Philippines, the US and China. The Worldwide Affairs. March 15, 2025. Accessible at: https://interaffairs.ru/information/present/50683 (accessed: 18.03.2025). (In Russian)
Gevorgyan, Kirill. 2012. “Unilateral Sanctions” and Worldwide Regulation. The Worldwide Affairs 8. Accessible at: https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/materials/720 (accessed: 06.03.2025). (In Russian)
Worldwide Regulation and the Struggle in opposition to Crime. Assortment of Paperwork. 1997. Zmeevskii A. V., Kolosov Yu. M. (introd.). Moscow. (In Russian)
Ispolinov, Aleksey S. 2023. Attempting on the Ring of Omnipotence: The Worldwide Prison Court docket and the Immunities of Heads of State. Rossiiskii iuridicheskii zhurnal 2: 37–58. (In Russian)
Ispolinov, Aleksey S. 2024. Anatomy of a Disaster: Issues of Normative Legitimacy of an Worldwide Prison Court docket. Zakon 2: 124–132. (In Russian)
Kjeldgaard-Pedersen, Astrid. 2020. Is the High quality of the ICC’s Authorized Reasoning an Impediment to Its Capability to Deter Worldwide Crimes? iCourts: iCourts Working Paper Collection 191. 29 p. Accessible at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Supply.cfm/SSRN_ID3570447_code2133408.pdf?abstractid=3570447&mirid=1&sort=2 (accessed: 05.02.2025).
Klabbers, Jan. 2017. Worldwide Regulation. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Cambridge College Press. 370 p.
Kritskiy, Kirill V. 2016. The phrases “worldwide sanctions” and “unilateral restrictive measures”. Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava 2: 204–213. (In Russian)
Kritskiy, Kirill V. 2019. Sanctions and unilateral restrictive measures in fashionable worldwide legislation. PhD in Regulation thesis. Moscow. 186 p. (In Russian)
Ning Yu. How US evades accountability for battle crimes in Afghanistan. World Occasions. Accessible at: https://www.globaltimes.cn/web page/202109/1235240.shtml (accessed: 14.02.2025).
Pyatibratov, Ivan S. 2020. Sanctions and unilateral restrictive measures: the issue of delineation of phrases and id of phenomena. Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta 10 (6): 61–65. (In Russian)
Ryzhova, Mariia V. 2006. Financial sanctions in fashionable worldwide legislation. PhD in Regulation thesis summary. Kazan. 25 p. (In Russian)
Schabas, William A. 2020. Chapter 1: The dynamics of the Rome Convention. The Elgar Companion to the Worldwide Prison Court docket. de Guzman M., Oosterveld V. (eds). Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Restricted; Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.: 3–19.
Shaw, Malcolm N. 2008. Worldwide Regulation. sixth ed. New York, Cambridge College Press. CLXVI. 1542 p.
Smith T. The ICC caught in clan rivalry in Philippines. Justiceinfo.web. January 27, 2025. Accessible at: https://www.justiceinfo.web/en/140756-icc-caught-clan-rivalry-philippines.html (accessed: 18.03.2025).
The Previous, Current and Way forward for the Worldwide Prison Court docket. 2021. Heinze A., Dittrich V. E. (eds). Brussels, Torkel Opsahl Tutorial EPublisher. XXI, 783 p.
Tladi, Dire. 2013. The ICC Selections on Chad and Malawi: On Cooperation, Immunities, and Article 98. Journal of Worldwide Prison Justice 11 (1): 199–221.
van Alebeek, Rosanne. 2008. The Immunity of States and Their Officers in Worldwide Prison Regulation and Worldwide Human Rights Regulation. Oxford; New York, Oxford College Press. XXXVIII, 449 p.
Article by Deputy Chairman of the Safety Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev for the St. Petersburg State College journal “Pravovedenie”
Supply hyperlink
