Misplaced Illusions, or How the Worldwide Felony Court docket has change into a authorized nonentity – INA NEWS

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi

The world retains altering, and never all the time for the higher. We now have witnessed the speedy 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, as an illustration, for the Worldwide Felony Court docket (the Hague Felony 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 method from alleged demand to full uselessness on the sting of absurdity, bias and cynicism. It is very important perceive what its present actions are conditioned by, learn how to react to them and what, ultimately, shall substitute this worldwide physique, which has compromised itself so shortly.

1.

It began ceremoniously, so to say. A yearning for justice has all the time united hundreds of thousands of individuals on Earth. Historical past holds examples of falling empires, whose rulers in some unspecified time in the future went euphoric attributable to their very own lawlessness, solely to be swept away within the blink of an eye fixed by the favored wrath. But it’s normally troublesome to carry the highly effective of this world to justice for crimes towards the general public good and humanity. That’s the reason supranational judicial authorities, not being topic to any nationwide authorities, are endowed with this activity.

Institution of worldwide legal tribunals after the Second World Battle was the primary try in historical past to say the supremacy of regulation on a worldwide scale, to realize 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 duty 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 carry to justice these guilty for probably the most violent crimes towards humanity. The lingering Chilly conflict impeded these plans. It was solely on the cusp of the Nineteen Nineties that the thought of a everlasting worldwide legal courtroom was revived¹, and in 1998 in Rome the Statute of the Worldwide Felony 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 perform, i.e. bringing to justice those that dedicated the ‘most severe crimes of concern to the worldwide neighborhood as an entire’, 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 perform as a part of the Pre-Trial Chamber, which initiates legal proceedings and points arrest warrants; the Judicial divisions, which take into account the case on the deserves; the Appeals division, which critiques claims in respect of acts and selections of the decrease divisions; and the Presidency, which inter alia is answerable for the ‘correct administration of the Court docket, apart from the Workplace of the Prosecutor’ (artwork 38(3) of the Rome Statute). The pinnacle of it’s the President.

Underneath artwork.119 of the Statute, the Court docket could, 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 decide 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 probably the most severe crimes, particularly genocide, crimes towards humanity and conflict crimes. But its jurisdiction isn’t common and covers solely crimes dedicated on the territory of its member states or by residents of its member states.³ Other than the abovementioned controversial factors, the Court docket’s Statute has contained different provisions from the very starting which in lots of circumstances might render inconceivable the enforcement of its selections (and so they have, as we are going to 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 scenario on the planet was completely totally different from what we will see now. It was clear that approval of the Rome Statute (like some other worldwide treaty) required representatives of greater than 100 nations to hunt mutually acceptable wording, striving for enhancement of the cooperation on this sphere. Constantly advocating full compliance with the UN Constitution, the international locations assumed that any contradictions may very well be regularly eradicated with a concentrate on the important thing ideas of the worldwide regulation enshrined within the UN paperwork. Taking this into consideration, the Russian Ministry of Worldwide Affairs accredited the execution of the Rome Statute within the identify and on behalf of the Russian Federation in 2000.

But later the Hague Felony Court docket displayed its political bias. The ICC itself com- mitted grave violations of the acknowledged ideas of worldwide regulation. In opposition to this political and authorized background, in 2016 Russia determined to not be celebration to the Rome Statute⁴. The U.S. and several other different international locations acted in the identical method. Bearing in mind that China didn’t signal the Rome Statute, three out of 5 everlasting members of the UN Safety Council should not events to it.

2.

The worldwide neighborhood positioned severe hopes on the Hague Felony Court docket at first. But on the very second of its institution it was fairly clear that the authorized construction itself appeared fairly unusual. Its constitution paperwork initially contained an entire row of inconsistencies, the primary of them being clear discrepancies with most necessary relevant guidelines of worldwide regulation — primarily with its cornerstone, the UN Constitution, which incorporates the basics of the regulation 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 some other worldwide treaty. Based on article 38 of the Statute of the UN Worldwide Court docket of Justice the primary supply of worldwide regulation are worldwide treaties (basic and particular), worldwide conventions, basic authorized ideas.

But the Rome Statute offered for its personal hierarchy of sources of worldwide regulation. Based on 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 acceptable), ‘relevant treaties and the ideas and guidelines of worldwide regulation, together with the established ideas of the worldwide regulation of armed conflicts’.

Thus, the internationally established ideas of worldwide regulation 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 stability of the relevant worldwide regulation 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 ‘basic ideas of the legal regulation’ used within the Rome Statute is in its essence improper, because it doesn’t differentiate between the nationwide legal regulation (the US, for instance) and the worldwide regulation 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 some 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) throughout the Second World Battle, ranging from the Moscow declarations signed on 30 October 1943. Extra so {that a} reference to this Declaration of the 4 main states may 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 attempt the Nazi leaders and organisations accused of conflict crimes on the London Convention on 8 August 1945 is basically totally different from the constitution of the Hague Felony Court docket as effectively. When it comes to their worldwide authorized standing, by advantage of the UN Constitution, the abovementioned paperwork are above any doc handed by the Hague Felony Court docket.

But those that influenced the event of the ICC weren’t the least involved. As an illustration, flouting of this elementary 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 answerable for severe violations of worldwide humanitarian regulation dedicated on the territory of the previous Yugoslavia after 1991. Russian research of worldwide regulation have by no means admitted this amalgamation⁵. Examples of such inconsistencies are quite a few.

3.

In consequence the ICC judicial follow raised professional 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 follow. 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 quite a few states (primarily the USA) which had been fairly dismissive in direction of the ICC and its follow. It’s understand- in a position, as within the West there’s a robust hierarchy of relations which displayed itself just 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 troublesome rebuke from Washington began speaking concerning 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 inconceivable to think about a better contempt.

Generally, in accordance with the ICC web site, it has thought of 33 circumstances in additional than 20 years; some circumstances are into account, together with these in respect of a number of political and navy 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 conflict and civilians, together with girls and kids.

A number of individuals concerned within the trials had been in truth condemned and imprisoned, primarily speedy perpetrators in a restricted variety of international locations, officers who had been testified towards. Nonetheless, quite a few high-ranking conflict criminals went unpunished. The Hague Felony Court docket demonstrated discriminatory blindness and listening to loss of their respect.

It’s also evident that for a few years the ICC has completely thought of the circumstances 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 not deal with?⁶ Was it actually crucial to determine 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 fascinated by 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 when it comes to 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 quite a few Western international locations refusing to prosecute individuals from the NATO international locations was recognised by representa- tives of assorted continents. For that reason specifically 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 had been nothing in need of a daydream but the place the US and their NATO allies had been advancing their pursuits. Thus, for nearly twenty years (from 2001 to 2021) the NATO forces had been engaged in lively navy operations on the territory of Afghanistan, the state which joined the ICC in 2003. Based on media studies 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 towards humanity and conflict crimes dedicated by the Afghan opposition group ‘Taliban’*, conflict crimes dedicated by the Afghan authorities safety forces, and conflict crimes dedicated on the territory of Afghanistan beginning on 1 Might 2003 by US navy 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 scenario 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 conflict crimes dedicated in Afghanistan by US navy 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 navy personnel and residents to legal responsibility in a world tribunal. In June 2020 US President Donald Trump declared that the ICC’s assertion of jurisdiction over U.S. navy, intelligence, and different personnel in the midst of investigating actions allegedly dedicated by these personnel in or regarding Afghanistan ‘constitutes an uncommon and extraordinary menace to the nationwide safety and international coverage of the USA’¹⁴. Invoking authorities offered in US regulation the President signed Govt Order 13928, underneath which the Secretary of State, in session with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Legal professional Normal, is tasked with figuring out any ‘international individual’ that, specifically, has instantly engaged within the ICC’s efforts to research, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel with out the consent of the USA, or has materially assisted, sponsored, or offered monetary, materials, or technological help for, or items or providers to or in help of, any ICC efforts described above. Such individuals may 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.

Finally, regardless of the newly obtained proper to provoke investigation of conflict crimes and crimes towards humanity dedicated in Afghanistan the brand new ICC Prosecutor has not but charged any US navy 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 towards the Worldwide Felony Court docket in response to ‘illegitimate and baseless actions concentrating on America and our shut ally Israel’¹⁸. The US President acknowledged that the conduct of the Court docket ‘threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the USA’¹⁹. The US threatened to impose ‘tangible and important penalties’ on ICC officers, staff, and brokers, in addition to their speedy members of the family, together with the blocking of property and belongings and the suspension of entry into the United States²⁰.

It must be famous that the primary individual 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, specifically, suspended Karim Khan’s entry into the USA, and his property that’s in or here- after comes throughout the territory of the USA, is blocked²¹.

4.

But it was when it comes to the arrest warrants issued for heads of sovereign states that the ICC reached the head of nonsense and disutility, together with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in respect of the scenario in Ukraine²². Passing such selections the ICC officers had been effectively conscious of the truth that they’d by no means carry any sensible end result, 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 attorneys, 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 Felony 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 offered by the worldwide regulation ‘shall not bar the Court docket from exercising its jurisdiction over such an individual’ (article 27). Then again, 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 Felony Court docket with none waiver offered by respective international locations launched the follow of issuing arrest warrants for sure appearing heads of sovereign states (non-Western, as a rule). First warrants of this sort had 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 towards al-Gaddafi was terminated upon his demise; 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 regulation, and the ICC itself didn’t have respective jurisdiction. Nor was the warrant enforced in quite a few 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 had 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 largely 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 regulation function in such a scenario to bar a world courtroom in its train of its personal jurisdiction’²⁴. Thus, in essence, the ICC proceeds from the notion that there isn’t any rule of customary worldwide regulation which might give immunity from arrest and give up of the top of state which is not celebration 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 slightly disputable, this and different assertions brought about honest criticism from specialists in worldwide regulation and, naturally, representatives of nationwide justice in numerous international locations.

I want to emphasise the next. Regardless of the interpretations of articles 27 and 98 of the Rome Statute, the very problem of arrest warrants by the Hague Felony Court docket for heads of sovereign states shall be certified as a violation of worldwide regulation, to begin 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 regulation 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 Felony 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) by means of pushing in direction of an arrest of the top of state, thus impeding the efficiency of respective official features, shall be additionally certified as a violation of worldwide regulation. Initially, by advantage of the primary activity of the UN Safety Council being upkeep of worldwide peace and safety (article 24 of the UN Constitution).

Fourth, the Hague Felony courtroom ignores the apparent proven fact that three out of 5 everlasting members of the UN Safety Council should not events to the Rome Statute. This resolution was at totally 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 Felony Court docket.

Fifth, the ICC officers shall perceive that making an attempt to restrict the actions of the top of state which is a everlasting member of the Safety Council they try and impede the functioning of the UN’s principal physique, which is solely answerable for selling peace. When the worldwide neighborhood is basically divided and our planet is on the point of a 3rd world conflict, the ICC’s resolution in itself has elevated the worldwide danger. The duty for this rising menace to humanity lies on particular officers of the Hague Felony 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 Felony 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 path 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 info and the relevant regulation the Hague Felony Court docket obligingly supported the ‘authorized conflict’ towards 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 problem was submitted to the Meeting, which in 2010 drafted amendments into the Statute. These included definition of a circle of individuals chargeable for this crime and the process of bringing them to legal responsibility within the Hague Felony 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 Normal Meeting was referred to as ‘aggression’ by the arithmetic majority of states (United Nations Normal Meeting Decision ES-11/1 ‘Aggression towards Ukraine’ dated 2 March 2022; United Nations Normal Meeting Decision ES-11/2 ‘Humanitarian penalties of the aggression towards Ukraine’ dated 24 March 2022 and different paperwork of the UN Normal 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 Felony 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 stand 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 Normal Meeting. Based on the decision, aggression is ‘… using armed pressure by a State towards the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of one other State, or in some other method inconsistent with the Constitution of the United Nations…’ which ‘…provides rise to worldwide duty’³¹ (emphasis added). Making use of this definition to the Particular Navy Operation, the Western states ignore main problems with the actual fact and regulation, to begin 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 inside affairs). After this coup d’état Ukraine de facto was now not a sovereign state.

One other circumstance ignored by the West as an entire is that using armed forces permissible underneath the worldwide regulation (by means of self-defence, together with preventive) isn’t aggression. But the primary flaw within the worldwide authorized place of the Western states is extra severe: they ignore the truth that in accordance 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 one among these international locations, Mongolia, early September 2024³². The go to proceeded in a heat and pleasant ambiance and ended fairly efficiently. The Hague Felony Court docket bought 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.

Based on 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 features in respect of ‘gross violations of the basics of worldwide regulation’³³ sounds fairly cynical. But interfering with the official duties of the top of a sovereign state which is a everlasting member of the Safety Council the officers of the Hague Felony Court docket irritate the chance of failure to move selections when it comes to the united states reacting to threats to world peace.

Within the doc of the Hague Felony Court docket accusing Mongolia of non-compliance by Mongolia with the request to cooperate underneath the Rome Statute it’s acknowledged 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. Based on the Court docket, some 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 accordance with which treaties must be interpreted in order to make sure their efficient implementation’³⁵. ‘Futility’ is to not be disputed. The Hague Felony 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 middle of interpretation of worldwide treaties an interpreter ‘should give which means and impact to all of the phrases of the treaty’ and ‘an interpreter isn’t free to undertake a studying that might end in 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 stress’ between articles 27(2) and 98(1) of the Statute³⁷, this stress 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 Resolution on Mongolia the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber acknowledged 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 isn’t aiming to impose obligations contained within the Statute to non-States Events, however is slightly in search of the cooperation of States Events in circumstances towards 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 celebration to the Statute to the top of state which isn’t celebration 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 regulation or extending the rule of article 27.2 of the Statute to the third state and its senior officers. There is no such thing as a third method.

The ICC displayed important self-confidence when confirmed that ‘any debatable bilateral obligation that Mongolia could owe to the Russian Federation to respect any relevant immunity that worldwide regulation could permit to Heads of State isn’t 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 Felony 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 basic pursuits of the worldwide neighborhood’⁴¹.

All these arguments are completely politicised and legally null and void. However, the Court docket pathetically acknowledged that Mongolia prevented the Court docket ‘…from exercising its features 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 could 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, until the Court docket can first get hold of 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. Based on article 4 of this treaty Russia and Mongolia shall ‘abstain from participation in any actions or help of such actions directed towards the opposite celebration’.

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 towards the ‘disobedient’. The Statute doesn’t present for any sanctions towards a member state which did not comprehensively cooperate with the ICC in the midst of exercising its features. In follow such sanctions have by no means been imposed. The pinnacle 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 had been taken towards 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, in contrast to the ICC, has the precise to use worldwide authorized sanctions).

This proves to what extent the Court docket and its selections are futile. However, one shouldn’t underestimate the scope and attainable penalties of the ‘authorized conflict’ the Western international locations proceed to battle towards Russia utilizing worldwide justice, together with different hostile actions and illegal restrictions. In essence, the ICC follow is sort of 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 change into a funnel by which any official of any state could also be drawn, in case there’s a political order, but additionally a commonplace instrument of political wrestle. To say nothing of arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, the scenario with the start of the ICC’s investigation into the scenario 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 kind of exemplary.

On 15 September 2021 the Pre-Trial Chamber authorised the ICC Prosecutor’s in- vestigation of the scenario within the Republic of the Philippines in respect of crimes which fall underneath the ICC jurisdiction which allegedly had been dedicated within the nation between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019 within the framework of the so-called ‘conflict on medicine’ 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 example usually, 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 as regards to its personal follow of interpretation of artwork.127 of the Rome Statute⁴⁵ basing on the precept of ‘if you would like it, you may’. 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 turned a instrument 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 courtroom 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 changed into an instrument of soiled politics.

It’s unclear what lawlessness we are going to witness additional on. The West, which is shortly shedding its positions on the planet and isn’t in a position to impose its will on the vast majority of the humankind, goes for broke and can cease at nothing. This hazard shall be considered. I, for one, have already speculated on what could observe the enforcement of an unlawful resolution of the ICC in respect of the top of state which isn’t celebration 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 unnecessary to debate how harmful such selections could also be in respect of the top of state of a nuclear energy and everlasting member of the UN Safety Council. To say nothing of the truth that individuals accountable for such selections could and shall be prosecuted by investigative and judicial our bodies of the nation the top of which is illegally dropped at legal responsibility.

6.

It must be remembered that amongst international locations which accuse Russia of ‘aggression’ should not solely the USA⁴⁸. Comparable pronouncements had 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 regulation, encroachment of ‘territorial integrity and nationwide sovereignty of Ukraine’⁵¹.

But one shouldn’t be glad that resolutions of the UN Normal Meeting should not formally legally binding. In follow in financial arbitration and judicial proceedings towards Russia and Russian residents references to such paperwork are necessary for the ‘internal conviction’ of the decide or arbitrator.

Even ungrounded accusations require exhaustive reply. On this respect I take into account 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. Subsequently, 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. Underneath 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 should not legally grounded and null.

Third. Encroachment of the Hague Felony 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 top of this state, thus interfering with the official features) is to be certified as an offence towards worldwide regulation. Firstly as a result of the UN Safety Council bears main duty for upkeep of worldwide peace and safety (article 24 of the UN Constitution).

Fourth. Russia isn’t celebration to the Rome statute of 1998, on the idea of which the Worldwide Felony Court docket was established. In 2016 Russia refused to be celebration to this worldwide treaty. Subsequently, the Statute doesn’t create any obligations for our nation.

Fifth. The actions of the Hague Felony 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 regulation and article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Conference on the Regulation of Treaties.

Sixth. Based on the Rome Statute, the thought behind issuing an arrest warrant is that the ICC requires a chance to additional oblige the Statute member states, specifically, to arrest the individual for whom the warrant has been issued and give up this individual to the Court docket (article 58 of the Rome Statute). But in case this individual enjoys immunity as an official of the state which isn’t celebration to the Statute, and the Hague Felony 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 individual 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 international legal justice: each ratione materiae⁵² and ratione personae⁵³. In case there isn’t any specific waiver of this immunity the worldwide judicial our bodies haven’t any jurisdiction over the top of the sovereign state.

Eighth. Based on the judgment of the worldwide Court docket of Justice dated 14 February 2002 within the case ‘Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000’, ‘in worldwide regulation 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 Overseas Affairs, get pleasure from immunities from jurisdiction in different States, each civil and legal’⁵⁴. The truth that this rule of worldwide regulation operates additionally in circumstances when there come up a query of chance of arrest the top of the state which isn’t celebration to the Rome Statute by a state which is celebration to the Rome Statute is recognised within the doctrine as well⁵⁵. Furthermore, in a single case the ICC recognised the actual fact there aren’t 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 individual, contradicts to the established customary worldwide regulation. That this doc permits for legal prosecution of cur- lease heads of sovereign states doesn’t adjust to elementary ideas of worldwide regulation enshrined within the UN Constitution, firstly, the precept of the sovereign equality of all its members, non-involvement into within the inside 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 neighborhood of states as an entire and doesn’t act in its identify. Three out of 5 everlasting members of the UN Safety Council should not 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 selections could and shall be prosecuted for crimes stipulated in the Russian legal regulation.

7.

In respect of the place acknowledged above an inexpensive query arises: what’s in retailer for the worldwide legal justice usually? Russian attorneys ought to voice complete and well-based skilled criticism of the ICC selections 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 neighborhood, media and other people in several 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 begin with ideas of sovereign equality of all states, non- interference with their inside affairs. They need to guarantee positive that particular officers of the Hague Felony Court docket who violate these ideas be taken to legal responsibility in accordance with worldwide and Russian nationwide regulation.

It appears totally attainable to develop on the regional degree (as an illustration, within the framework of BRICS) an idea of building a world authorized physique as an alternative choice to the Hague Felony Court docket. This new judicial physique in BRICS might reiterate the widespread dedication of its member states to the UN Constitution ideas, together with the ideas of immunity of heads of sovereign states from any international jurisdiction and non-interference into inside affairs of the states, together with by means of illegal international instructing of opposition leaders.

As for the ICC, sadly, at this level we have to recognise its whole inefficiency in performing its principal activity – bringing to legal responsibility all these responsible of genocide, aggression, conflict crimes, those that escaped punishment underneath nationwide regulation. All of them, together with residents of Western international locations and NATO member states. After all, it’s uncertain that the Hague Felony Court docket in its current type 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 planet is stronger than any sanctions, stress, hypocrisy and lies. And the worldwide regulation developed by the worldwide neighborhood is stronger than the rule of pressure. If the Hague Court docket is irreversibly flawed at current, the states will discover a chance to determine a special inter- nationwide legal courtroom which will probably be spared of those flaws. Its constitution shall be based mostly upon all universally recognised guidelines of worldwide regulation, together with the rule of absolute immunity of senior officers. Its jurisdiction could also be prolonged to the crimes of genocide, conflict crimes, crimes towards 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 courtroom will be capable of attain the targets declared within the Rome Statute of the ICC which the ICC itself proved unable to achieve.

¹ See: Schabas W. A. Chapter 1: The dynamics of the Rome Convention in The Elgar Companion to the Worldwide Felony 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 towards the peace and safety of mankind (Half II) — together with the draft Statute for a world legal courtroom // Worldwide Regulation Fee. Accessible at: https://authorized.un.org/ilc/summaries/7_4.shtml (accessed: 03.02.2025); Worldwide legal duty of people and entities engaged in illicit trafficking in narcotic medicine throughout nationwide frontiers and different transnational legal actions: Institution of a world legal courtroom 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 decide in his personal case” (In Latin).

³ Many publications have been written concerning the ICC. For the newest publications see: The Previous, Current and Way forward for the Worldwide Felony 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 Felony 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 celebration to the Rome Statute of the Worldwide Felony 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 Normal acquired 30.11.2016: Rome Statute of the Worldwide Felony Court docket: Rome, 17 July 1998: (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=XVIII-10&chapter=18&clang=_en#9 (accessed: 14.02.2025).

⁵ See, for instance: Worldwide Regulation and the Battle towards Crime / pref. A. V. Zmeevskii, Yu. M. Kolosov. M., 1997. (In Russian)

⁶ W. Schabas writes concerning the ICC as follows: “Solely few concluded circumstances matter. A lot of these accused had been insignificant individuals in little-known conflicts. With sentences of 12 or 13 years in jail it’s laborious to imagine that the Court docket offers with ‘those that bear best duty’ for ‘most severe crimes of concern to the worldwide neighborhood as an entire’‘ (Schabas W. A. Op. cit. P. 19).

⁷ Bosco D. Why is the Worldwide Felony Court docket choosing 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 Means Ahead to Strengthen Worldwide Felony 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 Felony Court docket. Accessible at: https://coalitionfortheicc.org/information/20190315/philippines-leaves-icc#:~:textual content=Aspercent20ofpercent2017percent20Marchpercent2Cpercent20the,afterpercent20Burundipercent20withdrewpercent20inpercent202017 (accessed: 04.02.2025).

¹¹ For conflict crimes in Afghanistan in additional element, see: Ning Y. How US evades duty for conflict crimes in Afghanistan // International Occasions. Accessible at: https://www.globaltimes.cn/web page/202109/1235240.shtml (accessed: 14.02.2025).

¹² Pre-Trial Chamber II: Scenario within the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, No. ICC-02/17 // Worldwide Felony Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-02/17-33 (accessed: 04.02.2025).

¹³ The Appeals Chamber: Scenario within the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, No. ICC-02/17 OA4 // Worldwide Felony Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_00828.PDF (accessed: 04.02.2025).

¹⁴ Worldwide Felony Court docket: U. S. Sanctions in Response to Investigation of Battle Crimes in Afghanistan // Congressional Analysis Service. Accessible at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11428 (accessed: 04.02.2025).

¹⁵ Worldwide Felony Court docket: U. S. Sanctions in Response to Investigation of Battle 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 identification of phenomena Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta. 2020. Vol. 10, no. 6. P. 64. (In Russian)). However, 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, as an illustration: Ryzhova M. V. Financial sanctions in trendy worldwide regulation 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 trendy worldwide regulation 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 should not all the time lawful. On this respect, it’s no less than 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 referred to as ‘sanctions’ in UN paperwork, whereas regimes created by these measures are referred to 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/file/777420/information/S_RES_2170percent282014percent29-RU.pdf?ln=ru (accessed: 06.03.2025); Subsidiary Organs of the United Nations Safety Council // Truth Sheets. Accessible at: https://principal.un.org/securitycouncil/websites/default/information/subsidiary_organs_series_7sep23_.pdf (accessed: 06.03.2025)). Quite the opposite, in sure UN acts the time period ‘sanctions’ isn’t used to check with unilateral coercive measures (see, as an illustration, Decision “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures”, adopted by the Normal Meeting on 19 December 2016 (A/RES/71/193). Accessible at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/file/857550/information/A_RES_71_193-RU.pdf?ln=ru (accessed: 06.03.2025)). However, 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 Felony Court docket Designations // Workplace of Overseas Belongings Management. Accessible at: https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20200902 (accessed: 05.02.2025); US imposes sanctions on prime worldwide legal courtroom officers // The Guardian. Accessible at: https://www.theguardian.com/regulation/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 Felony Court docket” // Federal Register. Accessible at: https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/57411/obtain?inline (accessed: 05.02.2025)).

¹⁸ Imposing Sanctions on the Worldwide Felony 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 Scenario in Ukraine: ICC judges problem arrest warrants towards Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova // Worldwide Felony 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 Felony Court docket: Issues of Legality of the Worldwide Felony Court docket (Opinion of the Worldwide Regulation Advisory Board underneath the Ministry of Overseas Affairs of the Russian Federation), // Ministry of Overseas 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 Overseas Affairs of the Russian Federation: Issues of Legality of the Worldwide Felony Court docket (translated by grad. college students V. V. Pchelintseva and A. M. Korzhenyak) // Moscow Journal of Inter- nationwide Regulation. 2024. no. 2. P. 92–104.

²³ Being the primary topics of worldwide regulation, the states could on the idea of treaties between them set up a spinoff topic of worldwide regulation, as an illustration, an intergovernmental organisation, a world judiciary and so on. The competence of this spinoff topic is outlined by the states which established it. See: Shaw M. N. Worldwide Regulation. sixth ed. New York: Cambridge College Press, 2008. P. 1303. On this respect J. Klabbers rightfully stated about worldwide organisations: “Organisations are creatures of their member states…” (Klabbers J. Worldwide Regulation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press, 2017. P. 92).

²⁴ The Appeals Chamber: Scenario in Darfur, Sudan: within the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir: Judgment within the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Attraction, No. ICC-02/05-01/09 OA2, 6 Might 2019, para. 114 // Worldwide Felony Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/websites/default/information/CourtRecords/CR2019_02856.PDF (accessed: 14.02.2025).

²⁵ See: ibid, para. 117.

²⁶ The existence of this conference in worldwide regulation was conformed by the Worldwide Court docket of Justice. See: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Reviews 2002, p. 3, para. 51.

²⁷ See: Doc A/6309/Rev.1: Reviews of the Worldwide Regulation Fee on the second a part of its seventeenth session and on its eighteenth session // Yearbook of the Worldwide Regulation Fee, 1966. Vol. II. New York: United Nations, 1967. P. 226.

²⁸ Preparation for the non-constitutional upheaval in Kyiv, directions given to the rebels by the US Embassy are comprehensively described within the ebook by former Ukrainian PM N. Azarov, who earlier labored 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 establishment Russia is a member of. For the IMF see its web site: Concerning the IMF // Worldwide Financial Fund. Accessible at: https://www.imf.org/en/About (accessed: 05.02.2025).

³⁰ A non-governmental organisation. Established in 1873. For extra particulars see its web site: Concerning the Institute // Institut de Droit Worldwide. Accessible 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 Normal Meeting Decision 3314 (XXIX) dated 14.12.1974). Accessible at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/file/190983/information/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 could flourish slightly than perish” (In Latin).

³⁵ Pre-Trial Chamber II: Scenario 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 Felony Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/websites/default/information/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. Scenario in Darfur, Sudan: The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No. ICC-02/05-01/09, 13 December 2011, para. 37. // Worldwide Felony Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/8c9d80/pdf (accessed: 05.02.2025).

³⁸ See, as an illustration: Ispolinov A. S. Anatomy of a Disaster: Issues of Normative Legitimacy of an Worldwide Felony 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 Means 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 Choices on Chad and Malawi: On Cooperation, Immunities, and Article 98 // Journal of Worldwide Felony Justice. Vol. 11. 2013. no. 1. P. 199–221; Van Alebeek R. The Immunity of States and Their Officers in Worldwide Felony 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 well-grounded (Schabas W. A. Op. cit. P. 19).

⁴⁰ Pre-Trial Chamber II: Scenario 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 Reviews. Sudan’s president has made 74 journeys internationally within the seven years he’s been wished for conflict 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: Scenario within the Republic of the Philippines: Resolution on the Prosecutor’s request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to Article 15(3) of the Statute, No. ICC-01/21 // Worldwide Felony Court docket. Accessible at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/websites/default/information/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 unnecessary conflict’ towards Ukraine (‘President Biden … accused Russia of violating the United Nations worldwide constitution in its “brutal, unnecessary conflict” towards 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, specifically, referred to as on the Russian Federation to ‘… imperatively respect worldwide regulation, 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 scenario in Ukraine // African Union. Accessible at: https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20220224/african-union-statement-situation-ukraine (accessed: 05.02.2025)).

⁵² Underneath ‘ratione materiae’ immunity we perceive immunity from international legal justice in respect of an official of the state concerning actions this individual executes throughout the framework of the mandate and which may be outlined as ‘formal actions’.

⁵³ Subjective scope of ‘ratione personae’ immunity: the top of state, head of presidency and the minister of international affairs are immune from legal justice of a international state. ‘Ratione personae’ immunity is recognised routinely, in accordance with the rule of worldwide regulation, 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. Reviews 2002, p. 3, para. 51.

⁵⁵ See, as an illustration: Ispolinov A. S. Making an attempt on the Ring of Omnipotence: The Worldwide Felony 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 Felony 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’, acknowledged: “The Chamber is unable to determine a rule in customary worldwide regulation that might exclude immunity for Heads of State when their arrest is hunted for worldwide crimes by one other State, even when the arrest is sought on behalf of a world courtroom, together with, particularly, this Court docket (Creator’s word: the ICC)” (Pre-Trial Chamber II. Scenario in Darfur, Sudan: within the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir: Resolution 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 Felony 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 Felony 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 Felony 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 Means Ahead to Strengthen Worldwide Felony Justice? Washington Worldwide Regulation Journal 29 (2): 247–301.

Bosco, David. 2013. Why is the Worldwide Felony Court docket choosing 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 Felony 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 Battle towards Crime. Assortment of Paperwork. 1997. Zmeevskii A. V., Kolosov Yu. M. (introd.). Moscow. (In Russian)

Ispolinov, Aleksey S. 2023. Making an attempt on the Ring of Omnipotence: The Worldwide Felony 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 Felony 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 Means 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 trendy worldwide regulation. PhD in Regulation thesis. Moscow. 186 p. (In Russian)

Ning Yu. How US evades duty for conflict crimes in Afghanistan. International 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 identification of phenomena. Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta 10 (6): 61–65. (In Russian)

Ryzhova, Mariia V. 2006. Financial sanctions in trendy worldwide regulation. 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 Felony 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 Felony Court docket. 2021. Heinze A., Dittrich V. E. (eds). Brussels, Torkel Opsahl Tutorial EPublisher. XXI, 783 p.

Tladi, Dire. 2013. The ICC Choices on Chad and Malawi: On Cooperation, Immunities, and Article 98. Journal of Worldwide Felony Justice 11 (1): 199–221.

van Alebeek, Rosanne. 2008. The Immunity of States and Their Officers in Worldwide Felony 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”

Misplaced Illusions, or How the Worldwide Felony Court docket has change into a authorized nonentity

देश दुनियां की खबरें पाने के लिए ग्रुप से जुड़ें,

#INA #INA_NEWS #INANEWSAGENCY

Copyright Disclaimer :-Underneath Part 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “honest use” for functions similar to criticism, remark, information reporting, educating, scholarship, and analysis. Truthful use is a use permitted by copyright statute which may in any other case be infringing., academic or private use ideas the stability in favor of honest use.

Credit score By :- This put up was first printed on RTNews.com , we’ve printed it by way of RSS feed courtesy,