The ongoing
events in Gaza vividly reveal the altered reality we inhabit. Israel's war on
Gaza has reshaped the meanings of words like truth, equity, and justice in our
contemporary world. These concepts, once universally understood, now carry
different interpretations for some, while not for all. And this is exactly what
is happening at the International Criminal Court (ICC) today.
اضافة اعلان
Established in
2002, the ICC serves as a permanent international body to investigate crimes
committed by individuals, while the International Court of Justice (ICJ) serves
disputes between two countries. The series of successful, as it seemed then,
UN-led tribunals over the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda paved the way for
establishing a universal international criminal court based on an international
multilateral agreement, eventually acquiring global recognition.
Moreover, the
ICC was initially viewed as one of those elements crucial to maintaining peace
and security in the world. That is why the Security Council was granted the
unique prerogatives to refer "cases" to the ICC. The work of the ICC
throughout the years showed that the hopes of "international justice
enthusiasts" were betrayed, either due to its ineffectiveness as a justice
organization or due to the power abuse and political games of its high-ranking
officials.
Rejections were also met with its attempts to prosecute acting heads of state in candid violation of international law on immunities. The ICC and its Office of the Prosecutor failed to draw any conclusions from this trend and continued to act in contradiction to the fundamental norms of international law and initiatives for conflict resolution.
With an annual
budget of $170 million and a staff of 900 employees, only 40 persons have been
declared wanted over the past 20 years, with just 13 final verdicts pronounced
(including four acquittals). These modest "achievements" of the ICC
have added to substantial political tensions with several states.
Concentrated
solely on the African continent, the ICC provoked a wave of legitimate
accusations of the "unfair geographical imbalance," perceived in
Africa itself as a manifestation of the neocolonial way of thinking in the
West. Besides, some rulings and decisions of the ICC have become major
obstacles in the way of settling several crises, and international or national
reconciliation processes.
Rejections were
also met with its attempts to prosecute acting heads of state in candid
violation of international law on immunities. The ICC and its Office of the
Prosecutor failed to draw any conclusions from this trend and continued to act
in contradiction to the fundamental norms of international law and initiatives
for conflict resolution.
But what is more important – some countries in the Western world formulate their attitude toward the ICC based on their pragmatic interests and foreign policy demands. It cannot but alarm us.
No wonder that
despite the astounding number of participating members (123), the ICC has not
become the truly universal body its supporters are constantly declaring. Apart
from Russia, other important players like China, Turkey, India, the United
States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Vietnam didn't join the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. And we do not see the former
enthusiasm among other states. Thus, over the period since 2015, only 4 new
countries were admitted as members, while 2 states withdrew, and 1 signature
was canceled.
But what is
more important – some countries in the Western world formulate their attitude
toward the ICC based on their pragmatic interests and foreign policy demands.
It cannot but alarm us.
The author is
Gleb Desyatnikov, Ambassador of Russia to Jordan
Disclaimer:
Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Jordan News' point of view.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
