The Court of Last Resort: Cases of the International Criminal Court
- Avinash Zhi Yong Suriar
- May 1, 2025
- 4 min read
By: Avinash Yong Zhi Suriar
I’m sure many older siblings reading this have witnessed favouritism growing up. You know what it’s like to see your parents turn a blind eye to the youngest or favourite child, letting them get away with things like stealing candy, leaving a mess or being forgiven too quickly (sorry though, I can’t relate as the youngest myself).
Now, imagine your younger sibling was a war criminal being charged with atrocities against humanity, and your parents were the national court. Would you want them to be let off the hook so easily? Would you be comfortable if the court were prejudiced, just like them? What if the government refused to even prosecute them?
Cases like these are the reason the International Criminal Court (ICC) exists. Founded in 2002 under the Rome Statute, the ICC is meant to be an independent, unbiased and global legal institution for holding individuals responsible for serious crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
In fact, the ICC only steps in for investigation or prosecution when local justice systems are unable or unwilling to prosecute these crimes themselves; a concept known as complementarity. As of today, there are 125 states party to the ICC (countries that have approved or joined the treaty).
Since its founding, the Court has handled 32 cases, 10 of which have been closed. Therefore, with many proceedings remaining unresolved, let’s turn to some of the ICC’s most pressing open cases.
Unfinished business
Former president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, was recently arrested on March 12, 2025, after an arrest warrant by the ICC was issued for multiple crimes against humanity, including torture, murder and rape. He is the first Asian leader to be held in ICC custody. Before that, he had led a controversial war on drugs across the country, where he maintained strong links to the Davao Death Squad, allegedly its founder. The DDS was responsible for multiple accounts of child killings, as well as disfiguring victims to make identifying them difficult. The worst part, they supposedly answered to the president himself.
“Throw them in the ocean or the quarry. Make it clean. Make sure there are no traces of the bodies,” one former police officer recalled hearing Duterte say. Rodrigo played a significant role in the death of thousands of people as a result of mass, extrajudicial (lawless) killings.
In fact, it was around this time in 2018 that he withdrew the Philippines from the ICC, possibly as a way to avoid retribution for his actions. However, this didn’t stop his downfall. Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute states that individuals can still be held accountable by the Court for crimes committed while their country was still a member. It was this rule that allowed his arrest to take place.
There is no denying these were severe violations of human rights, and that Duterte’s arrest is a milestone in ICC history and a new testimony to their effectiveness. His trial is set to begin on September 23 this year.
Another long-term thorn in the ICC’s side has been its difficulty in apprehending individuals involved in the War in Darfur, despite having arrest warrants for many of them. In the early 2000s, Darfur, a region in Sudan, was experiencing major political conflict between rebel groups and the central government. As the conflict escalated, the government created a militia (an army composed of civilians) group called the Janjaweed.
The rebels were mainly non-Arab revolutionaries, and the Janjaweed were mostly Arab. After encouragement from the government, when the time came for the Janjaweed to begin carrying out military operations, they started targeting all non-Arab civilians. This led to large-scale ethnic violence and discrimination, resulting in mass pillaging, rape and forced displacement. The president of Sudan at the time, Omar Al-Bashir, has long been suspected of organising and endorsing these crimes against humanity. Because of that, the ICC issued warrants for his arrest in 2009 and 2010.
However, a key problem with the ICC is that even if they issue arrest warrants to individuals, local governments may still harbour and protect them. In this case, Omar Al-Bashir is still able to escape prosecution due to the immunity offered to him as a former president. His arrest has been stalled to this day.
The limits of the Court
While the ICC is meant to have a mostly global influence, several powerful countries—including the USA and China—refuse to join the Court, citing reasons such as fear of political bias and a sense of duty to prevent their citizens from being prosecuted in outside courts. In fact, the White House made a recent announcement in February this year on new sanctions (threatened penalties) for anybody related to the ICC (including all ICC personnel) involved in the prosecution, investigation or arrest of an American citizen without the US government’s explicit permission. These sanctions mainly involve freezing personal assets based in the US.
Similar measures have been taken in the past. The former prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, attempted to obtain a visa so she could investigate alleged war crimes in Afghanistan by American soldiers, but was swiftly denied one due to threats made by the state secretary just weeks earlier.
Long story short, nations both powerful and developing alike are able to undermine and disregard the authority of the ICC due to its lack of ability to bypass the political influences shielding many potential offenders from punishment. This seems unavoidable for the time being, due to the ICC’s limited power.
Whatever it is, the ICC still demonstrates a noble goal: upholding and delivering justice anywhere in the world.
Case closed.
*For sources, click here
Comments