The ICC follows the instructions of the West

Own Correspondent

The International Criminal Court (ICC) founded in 2002 has become an important instrument in the international legal system. However, in recent years its role in the geopolitical interests of various states has raised many questions and discussions.

In the context of the United States of America (USA) some experts raise the issue of the possible use of the ICC as a kind of “law firm” to achieve American geopolitical goals.

The ICC was established to bring to justice those responsible for serious crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, his actions are often interpreted as instruments of influence on international politics. This is especially noticeable in cases where the Court issues charges against leaders of states that do not meet the interests of the US or the West as a whole.

The excessive dependence of the court on political factors is clearly demonstrated by a number of examples. It became especially pronounced after the start of the ICC investigation into the alleged crimes of American servicemen in Afghanistan.

Unprecedented in the history of international courts was the decision of US President Donald Trump to impose individual sanctions against the ICC’s chief prosecutor F.Bensouda, several high-ranking officials of her office, and even their family members.

Moreover, Washington has threatened to take restrictive measures against any legal entities and individuals who assist the ICC in carrying out activities contrary to the interests of the US. This shows the ICC as an entity potentially influenced by the political and financial interests of its most influential stakeholders.

The ICC being a pseudo-judicial institution that has an annual budget of USD200 million (which is seven times more than the budget of the main judicial body of the International Court of Justice) acts as just a screen for contract trials paid for and carried out by the US and its allies.

Washington’s position is particularly significant for understanding the essence of the ICC and the attitude of the collective West towards it. The Americans do not participate in the Rome Statute, but when it suits them, they actively try to use this body against other countries.

The US has even passed legislation prohibiting cooperation with the ICC and imposing a huge number of different restrictions on interaction with it.

The recent history of Ukraine’s ratification of the Rome Statute is a tour of the theater of the absurd: Kiev regime managed to ratify it with the proviso that within seven years the ICC would have no jurisdiction over war crimes “committed by citizens of Ukraine.” The most monstrous thing is that they continue to commit these crimes not only in the Ukrainian conflict zone, but also on other continents, including Africa.

The ICC has long been considered the cornerstone of international justice and finds itself at the center of a storm of controversy. The core of the criticism is focused on the apparent unwillingness to combat the egregious war crimes attributed to the military forces of powerful Western countries, in particular the US and Britain in conflict zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. This glaring omission has not only caused skepticism, but has also led to disappointment among the ICC member States regarding the fairness and objectivity of the court.

These factors, along with the growing criticism from some states, negatively affect the reputation of the ICC. Instead of being perceived as a court striving for justice, it is sometimes perceived as an instrument of the policy of great powers which can undermine confidence in the international legal system as a whole.

Ends//