“The future of the International Criminal Court is also being determined in Palestine.”

IOnly a quarter century ago, the Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted with the support of many states and non-governmental organizations, despite opposition from some major powers, most notably the United States.

Establishing the first permanent international criminal court with a global mission, which is of great importance now 123 member statesIt represents an undeniable turning point in modern history. It attests to the deep desire of many members of the international community to free themselves from the vagaries of realpolitik and the capacity of the UN Security Council to manage global governance.

Since it began operations in 2002, the ICC has faced numerous criticisms for its lack of effectiveness and inability to deal with those primarily responsible for international crimes. With only five convictions in two decades of activity, all targeting mid-ranking African officials, the court already presents a mixed record, to say the least.

Historic decision

In this sense, the situation in Ukraine represents a real paradigm shift. A few days after the Russian aggression on February 24, 2022, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan announced his intention to conduct speedy investigations and prosecutions in response to crimes committed in Ukraine.

On March 17, 2023, less than a year after the start of its investigations, the court, at the request of the Public Prosecutor, issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Lvova Belova, on their charges. Alleged role in the deportation and forced transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia. This courageous initiative demonstrates the Court’s ability to attack the powerful, including the current head of a nuclear state and a permanent member of the Security Council, when it has the will and the means.

However, this landmark decision was met with skepticism in many countries of the Global South. In highlighting the court’s passivity in the face of crimes committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Palestine, many see it as a new manifestation of the selectivity of its criminal policy and its supposed harmony with Western strategic interests.

For these critics, we should remember that the ICC has neither the mandate nor the means to investigate all crimes potentially subject to its jurisdiction, and that the scale of crimes in Ukraine is indisputably justified and makes it one of Ukraine’s priorities. Her investigations. However, we should not reject these criticisms out of hand, because they are based on some objective facts that, although partly within the discretion of the ICC Prosecutor, raise legitimate questions.

You have 52.4% of this article to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.