17 July is recognised as International Criminal Justice Day, because on this day in 2002 the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC, the Court) entered into force. Perhaps any Russian lawyer, teacher and student of law faculty or university has heard about the ICC at least once, mostly in a negative context. The Court is often accused of taking illegal, unjust and selective decisions. Such an assessment of the Court’s activities is not accidental, and in fact is characteristic not only of domestic legal scholars. Below I will briefly discuss what the ICC does and why it is regularly criticised both in Russia and abroad.
What is the ICC and why does it exist?
The ICC was founded as a permanent institution of international criminal justice. In this sense, it differs from its predecessors, the ad hoc courts, which were established on a temporary basis to investigate specific situations (the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the International Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia). However, the ICC should not be confused with other permanent international courts, primarily the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ), as they have different competences: the former deals with cases against individuals, the latter with interstate disputes. Sometimes the media or non-specialists mistakenly attribute cases of the UN ICJ to the International Criminal Court and vice versa, or incorrectly indicate the name of the Court, for example, “the International Court of Justice in The Hague” or “the International Criminal Court of the United Nations”. In reality, both courts are located in The Hague, and the ICC is not tied to any international organisation.
The ICC is governed by the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998 and came into force four years later. The Court has jurisdiction over four categories of international crimes: aggression, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Contrary to popular belief, the ICC does not (yet) deal with the crime ofecocide.
The court deals with the above offences if they were committed on the territory of state parties or by their nationals. However, a state that is not party to the Rome Statute may recognise the ICC’s jurisdiction over a particular situation. The Court can exercise jurisdiction in three ways: 1) if a state party has referred the situation to the ICC Prosecutor; 2) if the UN Security Council has referred the situation to the ICC Prosecutor; 3) if the ICC Prosecutor has initiated an investigation on his own initiative. The Court acts in accordance with the principle of complementarity, i.e. it does not replace but “supplements national criminal justice authorities” (preamble of the Rome Statute). For this reason, the ICC only acts when national courts are unable or unwilling to hear a case.
There are 124 States parties to the Court, including Palestine, whose international legal status remains unclear. At the same time, large and influential countries such as China, India, Russia and the United States do not participate in the Court’s activities. The latest state to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC was Armenia, which ratified the Rome Statute last year. The Court relies on the co-operation of the authorities of member states to apprehend suspects, as it has no police force of its own, and therefore each state is obliged to arrest anyone on its territory on the basis of an ICC warrant.
The Court is funded by contributions from States Parties in proportion to their economies. The largest contributors are the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan.
Claims against the Court by States
The main claims against the ICC are related to its powers, which, according to a number of states, threaten their state sovereignty. This is the rationale of India and China. In addition, the Court is often criticised for political bias and partiality of the judges and the Prosecutor.
The African bloc of countries is the largest regional grouping of the ICC with 33 states parties. Initially, African countries warmly welcomed the establishment and operation of the Court, but relations between a number of governments and the ICC have become strained over the past decades. States’ discontent stems from the Court’s focus on the African continent far more than other regions, which has created misleading and defamatory perceptions of Africa. Indeed, over a long period of time, most of the offences investigated by the Court have taken place in that region. It went so far as to notify the Gambia and South Africa of their denunciation of the Rome Statute in 2016, and the African Union even supported Kenya’s proposal for a mass withdrawal from the ICC, but these initiatives had no real impact.
However, one African country has left the ICC: in 2017, Burundi refused to co-operate after the Court’s decision to investigate the government’s crackdown on opposition protests. Incidentally, two years later, a second country, the Philippines, left the Court after the ICC began investigating the “war on drugs” organised by the country’s government.
The attitude of Middle Eastern countries to the Court is rather cautious: most states either have not signed the Rome Statute or have signed but not ratified it. Nevertheless, a number of states have endorsed the ICC since the admission of Palestine and the investigation of the conflict with Israel. Israel, in turn, categorically denies the jurisdiction of the SMO. In 2021, the country’s leadership stated that it does not recognise the ICC’s authority to investigate alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories, and in 2024, following the Prosecutor’s demand for the arrest of Israeli leaders, the country’s Prime Minister stated that Israel “will never accept any attempt by the ICC to undermine its inherent right to self-defence”.
The U.S. position on the ICC’s activities is twofold. The country initially strongly supported the creation of the new court and was actively involved in drafting the Rome Statute, but ultimately voted against the final draft of the treaty because of concerns that the Prosecutor would have unlimited power and could subject American soldiers and officials to politicised prosecutions. The U.S. later signed the Rome Statute, but soon withdrew its signature. In 2002, the country’s Congress passed a law under which the U.S. President can take all necessary measures to protect Americans from prosecution by the Court. In addition, the country concluded dozens of agreements with other states, obliging not to extradite American citizens to the Court. During D. Trump’s presidency, relations between the US and the ICC reached a low point: firstly, because of the Prosecutor’s initiative to investigate possible war crimes by US soldiers in Afghanistan, and secondly, because of the Court’s investigation of the Middle East conflict and alleged crimes committed by Israel. At the same time, the U.S. has repeatedly supported the ICC’s efforts. For example, the country’s leadership approved the UN Security Council’s referral of the situation in Darfur (Sudan) to the Court, despite the fact that Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute.
European and South American states are the least critical of the ICC’s activities. Almost all European countries are parties to the Court and take their obligations under the Rome Statute seriously. France even changed its constitution to ratify the document. In 2011, the European Union adopted a binding policy in favour of the ICC. As for South American countries, a number of them are now actively contributing to the Court’s investigation of alleged crimes against humanity in Venezuela.
Russia and the ICC
Initially, Russia favourably welcomed the idea of a permanent functioning International Criminal Court and signed the Rome Statute. However, due to the Court’s subsequent judgements, which the Russian authorities felt were political in nature, Russia stopped supporting the idea of the ICC.
In May 2024, the International Legal Council under the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which includes a number of leading Russian international lawyers, assessed the legality of the ICC. The main conclusions were as follows:
1. The ICC has gone beyond the powers vested in it by the states. In its practice, the Court has repeatedly violated both the provisions of its own Statute and universally recognised norms of international law. Among the most obvious violations were attempts to exercise jurisdiction over acts allegedly committed in the territory and by nationals of a state not party to the Rome Statute.
2. The practice of the Court and the reaction of states and their associations to many of the decisions of the ICC and the Prosecutor show that this institution has failed to fit into the international system of maintaining peace and security. On the contrary, the ICC has repeatedly become a factor complicating the settlement of interstate and intrastate conflicts.
3. The Court has repeatedly issued contradictory judgements, and the practice of dissenting opinions of judges has been abused. The interaction between the chambers of the Court and the Prosecutor is ambiguous, as the powers of the Prosecutor actually put judges in a dependent position.
4. The ICC decisions against Russia represent an internationally unlawful act. There are signs of its politicisation and engagement. The combination of violations of international law, procedural lapses, and interference by extraneous political factors committed by the ICC and its Prosecutor allows us to raise the question of the Court’s loss of authority in the eyes of a significant part of the international community and, as a consequence, of its legitimacy.