How some want to undermine the ICC and why it is in Ukraine's interest for it to function
The International Criminal Court has been criticised for its slow pace, selectivity, uneven attention to different conflicts, dependence on state cooperation, and inability to enforce its own decisions independently.
Some of these criticisms are entirely justified. The Court needs to become more efficient, transparent and consistent.
Increasingly, the issue under dispute is no longer the quality of the work of a particular institution, but the very right of an independent international court to investigate the gravest international crimes.
Political pressure exerted by individual states on an independent international court creates a dangerous precedent.
Read more in the article by international criminal justice expert Gunduz Mamedov, who examines the recent challenges facing the ICC and explains how Ukraine should respond: International criminal justice under pressure: why Ukraine cannot afford to stand aside.
Mamedov notes that the International Criminal Court became the first permanent institution established to ensure that accountability for the gravest international crimes would no longer depend on the need to create a new tribunal each time.
"At the heart of the Rome Statute lies a simple yet profoundly important principle: individuals must be held accountable for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. High office, military rank, or a state's nuclear status should not automatically guarantee impunity," Mamedov writes.
He also emphasises that the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting international crimes rests with states themselves.
According to the expert, the International Criminal Court intervenes only where a state is unwilling or genuinely unable to carry out an investigation or prosecution. This is why the ICC is not an alternative to national justice but rather its complement and a safeguard that the gravest international crimes will not go unpunished even when a national system proves incapable of fulfilling its responsibilities.
"These principles are now facing one of their greatest tests," the author writes.
At the same time, he argues, external political pressure is not the only challenge the Court has faced in recent times.
An equally serious challenge has been the internal crisis involving the now former Prosecutor Karim Khan. Recently, the Assembly of States Parties decided to terminate his mandate on the grounds of serious misconduct.
In Mamedov's view, it will be presented as evidence of the institution's moral crisis and its inability to judge the conduct of others.
The author argues that Ukraine is now one of the states whose experience will largely shape the future development of international criminal justice.
"Our voice in the discussion on the future of the ICC carries particular weight. And it must be heard loudly," he writes.
According to Mamedov, for Ukraine, protecting the ICC and international criminal justice is not merely a matter of principle but also one of practical importance.
He also argues that it cannot independently arrest suspects or bring them to The Hague. It depends on the cooperation of states. The arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin was an important decision by the Court.
"It is equally important to raise the issue of the consequences of non-compliance with those warrants, the role of the Assembly of States Parties, and mechanisms for the collective support of the Court. Without this, international criminal justice risks becoming a system of decisions with only limited practical effect," Mamedov writes.
As a full State Party to the Rome Statute, he concludes, Ukraine must be among those who shape the future of this system, defend its independence, and insist on the implementation of its decisions.