Introduction—
The concept of international Justice—that every individual, regardless of position or power, can be
held accountable for crimes against humanity—is a cornerstone of the modern international order.
The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 marked a historic turning point: an
independent judicial body with the authority to prosecute crimes against humanity and the crime of
aggression.
However, two decades later, it has become increasingly evident that diplomacy—the game of
interests, alliances, and balances—determines who is ultimately held accountable and who remains
untouchable. We will therefore examine how the ICC functions as a crucial tool for the defense of
rights, but also how it remains politically constrained, with emphasis on recent cases that confirm
this dual reality.
The International Criminal Court: Institutional Mission and Limitations—
The ICC was established by the Rome Statute and is headquartered in The Hague. It is the first
permanent international court aimed at promoting individual responsibility for the most serious
crimes under international law. It does not replace national courts—it operates subsidiarily when
states cannot or will not prosecute those responsible. To date, 123 states have ratified the Statute.
However, the United States, China, India, and Russia—four of the most powerful countries in the
world—are not members or have withdrawn their support. This absence of major powers creates
institutional contradictions and reinforces the impression that the ICC is a tool of the “West” to
discipline the “weak.”
Cases of Political Intervention and Selective Justice—
The case of Omar Al-Bashir in Sudan, where the ICC had issued an arrest warrant for the former
president of the country for genocide in Darfur (where, as of 2023, the UN estimates more than
15,000 people have been killed). Yet, for over a decade, he traveled freely to ICC member states
(such as South Africa and Jordan) without being arrested. The governments of these countries
refused to enforce the warrant, invoking the argument of diplomatic immunity for heads of state.
Although the ICC rejected this argument, it had no means to “force” compliance, revealing the
institution’s lack of enforcement power.
Furthermore, regarding the case of Putin and the war in Ukraine, in 2023 the ICC issued an arrest
warrant for President Vladimir Putin for the illegal transfer of children from occupied Ukrainian
territories. This event was described as “historic,” as it was the first time a warrant was issued
against the leader of a nuclear power. However, the legal and political consequences are limited:
Russia is not an ICC member, does not recognize its jurisdiction, and therefore does not cooperate.
While Putin restricts his international travel, he essentially remains untouchable, shielded by the
weight of his geopolitical power. No state wishes to risk a diplomatic rupture with Moscow to
proceed with his arrest, especially when doing so would endanger its energy and military security.
Can Diplomacy Support or Obstruct Justice?—
The ICC’s relationship with international diplomacy is deeply contradictory. On the one hand, it
requires state cooperation to execute warrants, gather evidence, and carry out prosecutions. On
the other hand, these same states can freeze its actions, ignore its decisions, or use their
cooperation as a bargaining chip. The UN Security Council has the right to refer cases to the ICC
even if they involve non-member states. Nevertheless, the existence of the veto power of the five
permanent members (USA, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom) often obstructs such
decisions. For example, Russia has used its veto to block investigations into war crimes in Syria.
Human rights diplomacy—that is, the promotion of universal values through foreign policy—is in
crisis. It is used selectively, only when it does not conflict with geopolitical or economic interests.
Accusations of Neo-Colonialism—
The majority of ICC prosecutions have targeted African leaders. This has led to intense criticism
from the African Union, which accuses the ICC of neo-colonial bias. The African Union argues that
although there are serious crimes in other parts of the world, the focus on Africa creates an image
of political imbalance.
Diplomacy as a Conflicting Force—
The International Criminal Court is institutionally one of the most promising creations of the modern
era. However, its success depends not only on law but on the willingness of states to enforce it,
even when this clashes with their national or strategic ambitions. Diplomacy is at once a means of
strengthening and obstructing justice. In a world where power determines accountability, the ICC is
forced to operate within a framework of inequalities and double standards. Unless certain structural
and enforcement weaknesses are addressed, the vision of universal justice will remain an ideal
never realized.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/06/icc-jordan-was-required-arrest-sudans-bashir?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/7/6/icc-s-africa-broke-rules-by-failing-to-arrest-bashir?
