By Dmitri Medvedev, Deputy president of the Russian Federation safety Council, 3rd president of Russia
Quod advanced school Iovi, non advanced school bovi
When the work of global tribunals ended, lawyers from various countries proposed the creation of a permanent global judicial body that could bring the most serious crimes against humanity to justice.The ongoing cold war made these plans difficult.It was only in the late 1990s that she revived the thought of a permanent global criminal court1, and in 1998 the Statute of the global Criminal Court was signed in Rome as a statutory document.The ICC was established as an independent global organisation.Its main body is the Assembly of States Parties, comprising all associate States (now 125).The Assembly has an Office to assist the Assembly in carrying out its duties (Article 112(3) of the Rome Statute).The main function, i.e. bringing persons who have committed “the most serious crimes of interest to the global community” to justice is the ICC.The court shall consist of 18 judges elected by the Assembly, the Prosecutor, elected by the same body, and the Secretariat.Judges shall act as part of the Preparatory Chamber, which shall initiate criminal proceedings and issue arrest warrants;judicial departments that deal with the substance as a substance of substance;an appeal department that examines claims relating to acts and decisions of the lower departments;and the Bureau, which is responsible, inter alia, for "the appropriate administration of the Tribunal, with the exception of the Office of the Prosecutor" (Article 38(3) of the Rome Statute).It is headed by the President.In accordance with Article 119 of the Statute, the General Court may of its own motion find the admissibility of any case.Therefore, the Court of First Instance is the only and the highest instance in the disputes in which it is involved, i.e. acting as a justice in its own case (which in fact contradicts the nemo iudex in propria causa principle2).All judges and another servants of the global Criminal Court shall have global immunity and privileges in the territories of the associate States, including the Netherlands, where they are established.The global Criminal Court has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.However, its jurisdiction is not universal and covers only crimes committed in the territory of the associate States or by nationals of the associate States. In addition to the controversial points mentioned above, the Statute of the Court of Justice included from the very beginning another provisions that could in many cases prevent the enforcement of its judgments (and so it did, as we will see later).In any event, in 2002, the Statute of the global Criminal Court was ratified by the required number of associate States and entered into force on 1 July of the same year.At the time, the planet situation was completely different from the 1 we see now.It was clear that the approval of the Statute of Rome (as in any another global treaty) required representatives of more than a 100 countries to search mutually acceptable wording, seeking closer cooperation in this area.Consistently in favour of full adherence to the Charter of the United Nations, countries assumed that any contradiction could be gradually eliminated, focusing on the key principles of global law enshrined in UN documents.Taking this into account, the Russian Ministry of abroad Affairs approved the implementation of the Rome Statute on behalf of and on behalf of the Russian Federation in 2000.
However, the Hague Criminal Court later demonstrated political bias.The global Criminal Court itself has committed serious violations of recognised principles of global law.Against this background, Russia decided in 2016 not to be a organization to the Rome Statute4.The United States and respective another countries have done the same.Given that China has not signed the Rome Statute, 3 of the 5 permanent members of the UN safety Council are not organization to it.2. The global community initially had serious hopes in the Hague Criminal Court.However, at the time of its establishment it was rather clear that the legal structure itself looked rather strange.His statutory papers initially contained a number of inaccuracies, the main of which were clear discrepancies with the most crucial applicable rules of global law — primarily with its cornerstone, the United Nations Charter, which contains the foundations of law and order in the postwar world.The United Nations Charter is to be consulted erstwhile drawing up universal treaties between countries, as well as many regional and bilateral agreements.Article 103 of the United Nations Charter provides that its provisions take precedence over the provisions of any another global treaty.In accordance with Article 38 of the Statute of the global Court of Justice of the United Nations, the main origin of global law is global treaties (general and specific), global conventions, general legal principles.However, the Roman Statute provided for its own hierarchy of sources of global law.In accordance with Article 21 of the Statute of Rome, the Court of the Hague first applies "this Statute, elements of the crime and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence";and only secondly (only where appropriate) "the existing treaties and rules and rules of global law, including the established rules of global law on armed conflict".Thus, the principles of global law laid down at global level under the United Nations Charter may be applied by the Hague Court under the Rome Statute of 1998 only in the second place, after the Statute and papers adopted by the Assembly and the Hague Court itself.In this way, the quasi-judicial mechanics was free to ignore the Charter of the United Nations and its legal standards.In fact, specified a imbalance in global law in force in the Rome Statute is unacceptable to any sovereign state, including Russia as a permanent associate of the UN safety Council.Furthermore, the concept of "general rules of criminal law" utilized in the Rome Statute is in fact inappropriate due to the fact that it does not separate between national criminal law (for example the US) and global law applicable to the fight against cross-border crime. The full ‘salt bowl of rules’ clearly did not comply with the national interests of the Russian Federation (or any another sovereign state).Contrary to the recognition of the sometimes applicable law in science, it is essential to separate between the Roman Statute, a paper which is the charter of the global Criminal Court, and treaties concluded by the USSR and its allies (other superpowers) during planet War II, starting with the Moscow Declarations signed on 30 October 1943. All the more so, the mention to this Declaration of the 4 major states can be found in Article 106 of the Charter of the United Nations.The agreement reached by the governments of the USSR, the USA, the United Kingdom and France to justice Nazi leaders and organizations charged with war crimes at the London Conference on 8 August 1945 is besides fundamentally different from the Charter of the Criminal Court in The Hague.In terms of their global legal status, under the United Nations Charter, the abovementioned papers are higher than any papers issued by the Hague Criminal Court.
However, those who influenced the improvement of the ICC were not least concerned.For example, the disregard of this fundamental political and legal discrimination (the merger of the first and second under the general word "international criminal justice") was characterised by pronatat prosecution of Serbian leaders within the alleged global Court for the prosecution of persons liable for serious violations of global humanitarian law committed in the territory of the erstwhile Yugoslavia after 1991. Russian studies of global law have never recognised this merger5.Examples of specified inconsistencies are numerous.3. As a result, ICC's judicial practice raised legitimate questions, not only from lawyers.Over time, the ICC has increasingly demonstrated its dependence on political and ideological factors which should in fact be excluded from its practice.The apparent tendency to condemn or pardon only in the interests of the alleged collective West has developed on the basis of its highly preferred double standards.Although this may seem strange, this active gaining the favour of a number of countries (mainly the US), which were rather disrespectful to the ICC and its practices.This is understandable due to the fact that in the West there is simply a tough hierarchy of relations that late came out in the case of Benjamin Netanjah, Yoava Gallant and others erstwhile European countries which are organization to the Statute of the ICC initially expressed their intention to prosecute Israeli leaders, but after a firm admonition from Washington they began to talk about the "exceptional character" of the case and refused to prosecute Israeli officials.Strictly speaking, after this the ICC should have chosen a solution due to the fact that there is no way to imagine greater contempt.
In general, according to the ICC website, 33 cases have been dealt with over 20 years;some cases are pending, including those concerning respective African political and military leaders (Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Sudan, Rwanda, Kenya, Libya, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Central African Republic).They are accused of torture, rape, robbery, massacre, kidnapping, demolition of peaceful settlements, abuse of prisoners of war and civilians, including women and children.Several people active in the trials were actually convicted and imprisoned, mostly direct perpetrators in a limited number of countries, officials who were testified against.However, many high-ranking war criminals remained unpunished.The Criminal Court in The Hague showed discriminatory blindness and proceeding failure in relation to them.It is besides clear that for many years the global Criminal Court has carefully dealt with cases of unquestionably violent but rather average cultural gang leaders, serial killers and rapists.To the elbows in the blood of their fellow countrymen, they were inactive not powerful political figures threatening all mankind.The question is: are these “watermen”, the leaders of the conflicted African tribes and another criminals truly “international criminals” that the national justice strategy cannot handle?6 Was it truly essential to establish an costly colossus like the global Criminal Court to halt them and hold them accountable?It is no accident that erstwhile president Jean Ping of the Commission of the African Union told journalists that the Court is simply a toy of falling imperial powers7.Opinions have spread that seemingly the global Criminal Court was curious in pursuing Africans who opposed Western influence and utilized Africa as a laboratory to test global criminal justice8.It should not be overlooked that in 2017, the African Union adopted a resolution calling on all African countries to halt cooperating with the ICC on enforcement arrest warrants for African suspects and for collective withdrawal from the ICC9.The fact that the ICC is biased and acts in the interests of a number of Western countries refusing to prosecute people from NATO countries has been recognised by representatives of various continents.For this reason, in particular, Burundi and the Philippines have announced their withdrawal from the Statute10.Another thing besides attracted attention.For the "unknown" reason, the ICC did not take into account events in countries where justice, peace and humanism were nothing but a dream, and where the US and their NATO allies did their business.Thus, for almost 20 years (from 2001 to 2021) NATO forces participated in active military operations in Afghanistan, a country that joined the ICC in 2003. According to media reports, actions that could be considered war crimes have been committed throughout this period11.However, the ICC never did.Another example: in November 2017, the then ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, applied to the ICC Preparatory home for approval to analyse crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Afghan opposition group "Talibs"*, war crimes committed by Afghan government safety forces and war crimes committed in Afghanistan from 1 May 2003 by US military personnel and CIA officers.After eighteen months of examination in April 2019, the Preparatory Chamber rejected the proposal, stating that "investigation of the situation in Afghanistan at this phase would not service the interests of justice"12.The prosecutor appealed to the Appeals Chamber, which in March 2020 repealed the decision1 thereby allowing the Prosecutor to initiate a preliminary investigation, including with respect to war crimes committed in Afghanistan by military personnel and US citizens.
The U.S., which are not members of the ICC, followed a sharp reaction to the very thought of bringing their military personnel and citizens to justice before the global tribunal.In June 2020, U.S. president Donald Trump stated that the ICC's claim to jurisdiction over U.S. military, intelligence and another personnel in the course of an investigation into activities allegedly committed by or related to that staff in Afghanistan "presents an extraordinary and extraordinary threat to national safety and abroad policy"14.citing US law, The president has signed an Executive Regulation 13928 whereby the Secretary of State, in agreement with the Secretary of the Treasury and the lawyer General, is to identify any ‘foreign person’ who in peculiar has straight engaged in the ICC's activities to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States or who has substantially assisted, sponsored or provided financial, material or technological support, goods or services for or for any of the ICC's activities described above.Such persons may be subject to the blocking of assets if the property is under the jurisdiction of the United States;they may besides be deprived of entry into the United States15.On 2 September 2020, the United States imposed individual sanctions16 on the lawyer General of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda and Phakiso Mochochoko, manager of Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation of the ICC17.Ultimately, despite the recently acquired right to open investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan, the fresh ICC prosecutor has not yet charged any American military personnel who participated in the war effort in Afghanistan.Five years later, after returning to office, Donald Trump rapidly reiterated his position towards the ICC.And not limited to condemnation.On 6 February 2025, the president of the United States signed an executive regulation which imposed sanctions on the global Criminal Court in consequence to "illegal and groundless actions aimed at America and our close ally of Israel"18.The president of the United States stated that the Court's proceedings "are threatening to violate the sovereignty of the United States"19.The US has threatened to impose "immaterial and crucial consequences" on ICC officials, employees and agents, as well as their closest household members, including the blocking of assets and assets and the suspension of entry into the United States20.It should be noted that the first individual to face the sanctions of the recently elected president was Karim Khan, prosecutor of the global Criminal Court, who initiated the arrest warrant for the president of Russia.In his executive regulation Trump in peculiar suspended Karim Khan's entry into the United States, and his property, which is located in or after the United States, will be blocked21.
4. However, with respect to arrest warrants issued to the heads of sovereign ICC states, he peaked at nonsense and uselessness, including Russian president Vladimir Putin as regards the situation in Ukraine22.When making specified decisions, ICC officials were perfectly aware that they would never bring any applicable results, saving propaganda consequences, which is apparent in the interests of the same Anglo-Saxon world.The judges and ICC officials should surely not be considered insane or ignorant.They are experienced lawyers who know the content of global treaties and the limits of their power.Nevertheless, they never refused to do any "ideological work", especially erstwhile it afraid the heads of sovereign states.By establishing the Criminal Court in The Hague, the parties to the Rome Statute agreed to compromise.On the 1 hand, the Statute provides that the immunities of the Head of State or another advanced authoritative of the State provided for by global law “will not prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over specified a person” (Article 27).On the another hand, in the same document, the Court undertakes to "enhance cooperation" of the State in order to waive the immunity of its advanced authoritative (Article 98).In fact, the Criminal Tribunal in The Hague has introduced the practice of issuing arrest warrants for any serving as Heads of Sovereign States (normally non-Western).The first orders of this kind were issued in respect of the Sudanese head of State Omar al-Bashir (2009) and serving as Head of State of Libya Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Kaddafi (2011).The case against al-Kaddafim was terminated after his death;the arrest warrant for Saif al-Islam al-Kadddafi, his boy and companion, de facto Prime Minister of Libya, has not yet been executed, the case is in the pretrial stage.As regards Omar al-Bashir, Sudan refused to execute the order of the Court of First Instance, stating that it was a ‘political’ paper which was contrary to national law and that the ICC itself had no jurisdiction.The warrant was besides not executed in respective associate States of the ICC (Malawi, Jordan, Uganda, Chad, South Africa and others) visited by Omar al-Bashir.The legal positions of respective countries on this list were examined by the ICC Judicial Divisions, which mostly shaped the Court’s position on the immunity of elder officials of states who are not members of the ICC.The opinion of the ICC on this substance was mainly expressed in the decision of the Board of Appeal concerning the refusal of Jordan to release Omar al-Bashir.
According to the global Criminal Court, ‘no immunity under average global law shall act in specified a situation as to prevent an global court from exercising its own jurisdiction’24.Thus, in fact, the global Criminal Court assumes that there is no regulation of average global law which would grant immunity before the arrest and surrender of a State which is not a organization to the Rome Statute, by a State which is simply a associate of the Statute on the basis of an application for arrest and issue issued by the Court25.In a alternatively controversial way, this and another claims have provoked legitimate criticism by global law experts and, naturally, representatives of the judiciary in various countries.I would like to emphasise the following.Notwithstanding the explanation of Articles 27 and 98 of the Statute of Rome, the very issue of arrest warrants issued by the Hague Criminal Court for heads of sovereign states should be considered a violation of global law, primarily the United Nations Charter.The reasons are as follows.Firstly, the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations take precedence over the Rome Statute, as mentioned earlier.Secondly, the rule of sovereign equality of all UN members is the basis of the UN (Article 2).Heads of state represent appropriate sovereign governments and, under specified a basic origin of global law as global conventions, "are enjoying full immunity from jurisdiction in another countries, both civilian and criminal"26.Violation by the Hague Criminal Court is simply a crime.Thirdly, the violation by the Court of the Hague of the regulation of State sovereignty (in the case of Russia, a permanent associate of the UN safety Council) by pressing for the arrest of the head of state, thus obstructing the exercise of appropriate authoritative functions, should besides be considered a violation of global law.Firstly, by virtue of the UN safety Council's main task of maintaining global peace and safety (Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations).Fourth, the Hague Criminal Court ignores the apparent fact that 3 of the 5 permanent members of the UN safety Council are not parties to the Rome Statute.This decision was made at various times by China, Russia and the USA.Hence, under Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and conventional global Law of 196927 The Rome Statute does not impose any obligations on States that are not members of it (Article 34 of the 1969 Convention), including those declared by the Hague Criminal Court.Fifth, officials of the global Criminal Court should realize that, in trying to limit the activities of the head of state, who is simply a permanent associate of the safety Council, they are trying to impede the functioning of the main UN body, which is solely liable for promoting peace.When the global community is fundamentally divided and our planet is on the verge of a 3rd planet war, the decision of the global Criminal Court itself has increased global risk.The work for this increasing threat to humanity besides rests with circumstantial officials of the Hague Criminal Court.
5. It is known that even before the loud “political ruse” towards Russian president Vladimir Putin, the Criminal Court in The Hague frequently had to execute reasonably slippery orders from its secret puppet masters.After the 2014 Kiev coup, in which the USA helped28, the refusal to recognise the legitimacy of the coup by the residents of Crimea and Donbas, the continuous fire of Donbas at the command of the Kiev leaders and the de facto genocide of its population, Russia took measures to defend its compatriots.Without considering the legal analysis of the above facts and applicable law, The Criminal Court in The Hague kindly supported the "legal war" against our country led by the US and their satellites.The very controversial word "aggression" came into play.By the way, it was not included in the jurisdiction of the ICC until after many years of discussions.By the time the Rome Statute was signed in 1998, the parties failed to scope a legally acceptable definition of the word "aggression".This issue was referred to the Assembly, which drafted amendments to the Statute in 2010.They included the definition of the ellipse of persons liable for the crime and the procedure for holding them accountable in the Criminal Court of The Hague.However, the legal standards introduced were not universal.Under force from the United States, the United States peculiar Military Operation in the defence of Donbas in the UN General Assembly papers was named ‘aggression’ by the arithmetic majority of states (UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 ‘Agression to Ukraine’ of 2 March 2022; UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/2 "Humanitarian consequences of aggression against Ukraine" of 24 March 2022 and another UN General Assembly documents).Other organisations under Western control, namely the global Monetary Fund (IMF)29, the global Law Institute30 and others, have besides contributed.Finally, in March 2023. The Criminal Tribunal in The Hague has obediently issued warrants for the arrest of the president of the Russian Federation and the Russian Commissioner for the Rights of the Child.From a legal point of view, this decision did not withstand any criticism.Western countries usage the word "aggression" purely formally, in the sense given to it in the 1974 UN General Assembly Resolution. According to the resolution, aggression is ‘...the usage of armed forces by the state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independency of another State or in any another way contrary to the UN Charter...’, which ‘...causes global responsibility’1 (emphasis added).In applying this definition to peculiar Military Operations, Western states ignore the main factual and legal issues, notably the aforementioned coup in Kiev in 2014, inspired by Washington, which constituted a manifest violation of Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations (not interfering with interior affairs of the state).After this coup, Ukraine was de facto no longer a sovereign state.Another condition ignored by the West as a full is that the usage of armed forces permitted under global law (under self-defense, including preventive) is not aggression.However, the main drawback in the global legal position of Western states is that they ignore the fact that, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, determining the fact of "aggression" and taking appropriate action is solely the prerogative of the UN safety Council, including the affirmative vote of its 5 permanent members, but not another body, whether from the UN or not, or from another global organisation.However, countries that are inactive parties to the Rome Statute have besides failed to implement the ICC decisions.The president of Russia visited 1 of these countries, Mongolia, in early September 2024.The visit took place in a warm and friendly atmosphere and ended rather successfully.The Hague Criminal Court was almost hysterical.He immediately joined the trial with Mongolia, stating that it had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Rome Statute due to the fact that it had not arrested the president of Russia, thereby failing to comply with the ICC's request for cooperation.
According to the global Criminal Court, the parties to the Rome Statute are required to arrest the persons for whom the Court has issued orders, "regardless of their authoritative position or nationality".In this context, the message of the global Criminal Court that it is performing its functions in relation to "the threatening violations of the fundamental principles of global law" is rather cynical.However, by interfering with the authoritative duties of the head of the sovereign state, who is simply a permanent associate of the safety Council, officials of the Hague Criminal Court increase the hazard of not taking decisions on the UN safety Council's consequence to global peace threats.The Hague Criminal Court paper accusing Mongolia of not complying with its request for cooperation under the Rome Statute states that Article 98(1) allegedly does not amend Article 27(2) nor does it supply for any exceptions, i.e., the Court considers that the Statute does not supply for a "renunciation of immunity" for the heads of sovereign states.According to the Court, any another explanation would make the obligations of the associate States ‘nonsensical’ and the full strategy of the Court ‘favourable’, ‘contrary to the rule of effectiveness (u res magis valeat quam pereat)’34, resulting from Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, ‘according to which the Treaties should be interpreted in order to guarantee their effective implementation’35."Dremacy" is not up for discussion.The Hague Criminal Court has repeatedly demonstrated this feature.As regards the rule of effectiveness, the argument put forward by the Court is distorted.In the course of the explanation of the global treaties, the translator “must give meaning and effect to all the terms of the treaty” and “the interpreter cannot freely accept an explanation that would consequence in bringing all the clauses or paragraphs of the treaty to unnecessary or useless”3.It should be mentioned that earlier, the global Criminal Court considered that there is simply a "insular tension" between Articles 27(2) and 98(1) Statute7, and this tension is substantively analysed in doctrine8.All these clearly point to legal and method shortcomings of the Statute9, which make this already imperfect instrument absolutely impossible to apply.In its decision in the case of Mongolia, the ICC Preparatory Chamber stated that Article 34 of the Vienna Convention ‘is irrelevant to the case under consideration (whether non-members are bound by the Statute — note) since the Court is not intended to impose obligations in the Statute on non-Parties but alternatively to search the cooperation of the States Parties in cases against persons who allegedly committed offences under Article 5 of the Statute in the territory of the State in which the Court has jurisdiction’.However, this position is besides invalid: the failure to safe immunity by a organization to the Statute of the head of state which is not a organization to the Statute is an extension of the Statute to specified a State, as the second has the right to request immunity from its elder officials, while the host State is required to grant specified immunity.If the second does not do so under Article 27.2 of the Statute, it will either be considered a violation of average global law or an extension of Article 27.2 of the Statute to a 3rd country and its elder officials.There's no 3rd way.
The global Criminal Court showed considerable assurance erstwhile it confirmed that “no disputed bilateral commitment that Mongolia may have towards the Russian Federation to respect any existing immunity that global law may grant to Heads of State is capable of replacing the obligations that Mongolia has towards the Court, which is obliged to exercise its jurisdiction...40. It is true: all global acts are inferior to the Statute, according to the side commentators of the Court. In her correspondence with the Hague Criminal Court, Mongolia referred to the customary legal rule of the immunity of Heads of State and the judgement of the global Court of Justice (MTS) on the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000, which confirmed its existence.In its reply, the Hague Court reiterated its position: "While individual immunity acts in relations between States, it does not defend individuals, including Heads of State, from being prosecuted by global criminal courts", arguing that the ICC "is inherently independent of States, completely impartial and acts in the general interest of the global community"41.All these arguments are completely politicized and legally irrelevant.Nevertheless, the Court has sadly stated that Mongolia has prevented the Court from "...executing its functions and powers..." and "did not fulfil its global obligations under the Statute..."42, thus rejecting all the objections of Mongolia.It should be mentioned that, in accordance with Article 98.2 of the Statute of Rome, "The Tribunal may not examine a request for an issue which would require the requested State to act contrary to its obligations under global agreements, according to which the consent of the sending State is required to surrender a individual from that State to the Court unless the Court can first get cooperation from the sending State in order to consent to the issue".In this sense, the 2019 Treaty on Friendly Relations and Comprehensive strategical Partnership between the Russian Federation and Mongolia applies (it entered into force in September 2020).In accordance with Article 4 of that Treaty, Russia and Mongolia "resist from participating in or supporting any action against the another party".All this litigation had no crucial consequences for Mongolia or Russia.The Assembly of the global Criminal Court itself decides on the measures to be taken against "the disobedient".The Statute does not supply for any sanctions against a associate State which has not full cooperated with the ICC in the performance of its functions.In practice, specified sanctions have never been imposed.Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir visited more than 20 countries, including members of the ICC, within 7 years of the first arrest warrant issued by the ICC in 2009, but was not arrested in any of them4.No action has been taken against these countries, although Omar al-Bashir's arrest warrant was issued in a case initiated by the UN safety Council (which, unlike the ICC, has the right to apply global legal sanctions).
This proves to what degree the Court and its decisions are futile.Nevertheless, the scope and possible consequences of the "legal war" which Western countries proceed to wage with Russia, utilizing global justice, along with another hostile actions and illegal restrictions, should not be underestimated.Indeed, the practice of the ICC is almost ready to legally justify the kidnapping of officials who benefit from immunity from the territories of countries which are not parties to the Rome Statute, all the more so that the ICC has become not only a funnel in which any authoritative of any country may be drawn in erstwhile there is political order but besides a universal tool for political combat.Not to mention the warrants for the arrest of Vladimir Putin and Maria Lwowa-Bielowa, the situation with the beginning of an ICC investigation into the situation in the Republic of the Philippines and the subsequent arrest on 11 March 2025 and the transfer of the ICC to erstwhile president Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines is rather exemplary.On 15 September 2021, the Preparatory Chamber authorised the Prosecutor of the ICC to launch an investigation into the situation in the Republic of the Philippines with respect to crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC that were allegedly committed in the country between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019 in the framework of the alleged ‘war on drugs’ campaign44.This decision and further developments are different in the following respect.Firstly, the ICC did not have jurisdiction over this situation in general, as the investigation was authorised by the home on 15 September 2021, while the Philippines withdrew from the Statute on 17 March 2019. However, this did not prevent ICC judges from uncovering the basis for this jurisdiction in relation to their own practice of interpreting Article 127 of the Rome Statute45 on the basis of the rule of ‘if you wish, you may’.Secondly, the arrest and transfer of the ICC to erstwhile president Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines was not the designation of the jurisdiction of the ICC by the Philippines, which are no longer a organization to the Statute, but the transfer by the Marcos clan (Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr. is the current president of the Philippines) of their political opponent from the Duterte46 clan, i.e. the ICC has actually become a tool for clan rivalry in the Philippines.So the media opinion that the mandate to analyse the Philippines " casts a dark shadow on the ability of the court to execute its work independently"47, rather accurately reflects the transformation of the essence of the Court itself: with the instrument of justice it became an instrument of dirty politics.It is unclear what illegality we will proceed to witness.The West, which rapidly loses its position in the planet and is incapable to impose its will on most of humanity, goes all the way and does not back distant from anything.This danger should be considered.I, for example, have already speculated on what could happen after the ICC's illegal decision has been made with respect to the head of the State which is not a organization to the ICC.The implementation of specified a decision can be considered as casus belli in respect of the countries involved.There is no request to discuss how dangerous specified decisions can be with respect to the head of a atomic power state and a permanent associate of the UN safety Council.Not to mention that those liable for specified decisions can and will be prosecuted by investigative and judicial authorities of a country whose head has been illegally held liable.6. It should be remembered that among the countries that accuse Russia of "aggression", they are not just US48.Similar statements were made by NATO associate States49, as well as most members of the Council of Europe and the 7 most developed economies, G750.The African Union has joined efforts to accuse Russia of violating global law, violating the "territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Ukraine"51.However, it should not be satisfied that resolutions of the UN General Assembly are not legally binding.In practice, in economical arbitration and judicial proceedings against Russia and Russian nationals, references to specified papers are crucial for the "internal conviction" of a justice or arbitrator.Even baseless accusations require a full answer.In this regard, I consider it essential to repeat our position with respect to the alleged "aggression" which the West is persistently accusing Russia of, and the activities of the ICC as attempts to give these accusations legal power.Let us summarise the above.
First.After the 2014 coup, Kiev took over the dependent political government under full control of Western countries.Part of the erstwhile Ukraine, drugged and controlled by it, is de facto no longer a sovereign state.Therefore, the defence of Donbas by Russia, which did not recognise the coup and was attacked by the illegal Kiev Government of 2014, cannot be legally qualified as "aggression".Second.According to the United Nations Charter, the determination of the fact of "aggression" and action in this area is simply a prerogative of the UN safety Council (including a vote in favour of the adoption by the 5 countries that are its permanent members).No another authority, whether from the UN or not, or any another global organisation has specified powers.Their statements are not legitimate and invalid.Third.Infringement by the Criminal Court of the Hague of sovereignty of a permanent associate of the UN safety Council (the desire to arrest the head of that State and thus interfere with its authoritative functions) should be classified as an offence against global law.Firstly, as the UN safety Council has the primary work for maintaining global peace and safety (Article 24 of the UN Charter).Fourth.Russia is not a organization to the 1998 Rome Statute on the basis of which the global Criminal Court was established.In 2016, Russia refused to join this global treaty.Therefore, the Statute does not impose any obligations on our country.Five.The actions of the Hague Criminal Court and its position are contrary to the rule of ‘pacta tertiis ne nocturnal non-prosunt’ (the Treaty does not make obligations or rights for a 3rd country without its consent) enshrined in customary global law and Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. Six.According to the Rome Statute, the thought behind the issuing of an arrest warrant is that the ICC requires the anticipation of further commitment by the associate States of the Statute, in peculiar to arrest the individual for whom the warrant was issued and to transfer that individual to the Court (Article 58 of the Rome Statute).However, where that individual benefits from immunity as an authoritative of a State which is not a organization to the Statute and the Hague Criminal Court has not requested the assistance of that State, the issuing of specified an order and the request of the Court to the associate State of arrest are contrary to Article 98 of the Statute.Seven.The president of the Russian Federation, being the current head of a sovereign state, is completely immune to abroad criminal justice: both ratione matterie52 and ratione personae5ł.In the absence of a clear waiver of this immunity, global judicial authorities shall have no jurisdiction over the head of a sovereign state.Eight.According to the judgement of the global Court of Justice of 14 February 2002 in ‘The Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000’, ‘in global law it is firmly established that, like diplomatic and consular agents, any holders of advanced positions in a state specified as the head of state, the head of government and the minister of abroad affairs enjoy immunity from jurisdiction in another countries, both civilian and criminal’54.The fact that this rule of global law besides works in cases where there is simply a question of the anticipation of arresting a head of a State not organization to the Rome Statute by a State organization to the Rome Statute is besides recognised in doctrine55.Furthermore, in 1 case, the ICC considered that there were no exceptions to this rule in relation to the situation where the State acted on its behalf56.Article 27 of the Statute of Rome, within the meaning of which the immunity of an authoritative does not impede jurisdiction vis-à-vis that person, is contrary to established customary global law.The fact that this paper allows criminal prosecution of the current Heads of Sovereign States is not consistent with the basic principles of global law contained in the United Nations Charter, first of all, the rule of sovereign equality of all its members, not engaging in the interior policy of another State.
Nine.Since February 2025, 125 countries have been organization to the Rome Statute57 (in the UN there are 193 members)58.Despite its number, the ICC does not represent the full global community of states and does not act on its behalf.Three of the 5 permanent members of the UN safety Council are not organization to it (Russia, China and the USA), along with industrialised and densely populated Asian countries (India, Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia), many arabian countries59.Ten.Judges, prosecutors and another officials who have made unlawful decisions may and will be prosecuted for crimes specified in Russian criminal law.7. Therefore, a legitimate question arises: what awaits the global criminal justice strategy in general?Russian lawyers should express a comprehensive and well-founded professional criticism of ICC decisions in all forums.They should present Russia's global legal position with respect to the peculiar Military Operations, the Ukrainian conflict and another important, hard issues of the global legal community, media and people in different countries.They should explain the controversy and do it actively and continuously.They should reiterate our commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and, above all, the rule of sovereign equality of all states, non-interference in their interior affairs.They should guarantee that circumstantial officials of the Hague Criminal Court who violate these rules are held accountable in accordance with global and Russian law.The concept of an global legal body as an alternate to the Hague Criminal Court seems entirely possible at regional level (for example in the BRICS).This fresh judicial body in BRICS could reiterate the joint commitment of its associate States to the principles of the United Nations Charter, including the principles of the immunity of sovereign heads of states from any abroad jurisdiction and non-interference in the home affairs of states, including through the unlawful abroad instruction of opposition leaders.As far as the ICC is concerned, unfortunately, at this point we must recognise his full inability to carry out his main task – to hold all guilty genocides, aggressions, war crimes, those who have avoided punishment under national law.All including citizens of Western countries and NATO associate States.Of course, it is doubtful that the Criminal Tribunal in The Hague in its present form and function will make efforts to do so.That's why he'll be forgotten.
However, the desire for justice, which unites all people in the world, is stronger than any sanctions, pressures, hypocrisy and lies.And global law developed by the global community is stronger than power governments.If the Court of the Hague is presently irreparably flawed, the States afraid will find an chance to establish another global criminal court which will be free of these defects.Its statutes will be based on all widely recognised principles of global law, including the absolute immunity of elder officials.His jurisdiction may be extended to crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and terrorist attacks.Such attacks are frequently prepared and committed in 2 or more countries.International cooperation within this fresh body will be able to prevent them.There is hope that this fresh court will be able to accomplish the objectives declared in the Rome Statute of the global Criminal Court, which the ICC itself was incapable to achieve.1 See Schabas W. A. Chapter 1: The dynamics of the Roman conference at The Elgar Companion to the global Criminal Court.Red.M. deGuzman and V. Oosterveld.Cheltenham;Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2020. S. 4–5.See also: Summary of the work of the Committee on global Law: Draft Code of Crime against Human Peace and safety (Part II) — including draft Statute of the global Criminal Court // Commission of global Law.Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/summaries/7_4.shtml (accessed: 03.02.2025);International criminal liability of persons and entities active in illicit drug trafficking across national borders and another transnational criminal activities: Establish an global criminal court with jurisdiction over specified crimes // planet Legal Information Institute.Available at: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/UNGA/1989/52.pdf (accessed: 03.02.2025).2 “No 1 is simply a justice in his own case” (in Latin).Many publications have been written about the global Criminal Court.The latest publications can be found in: The Past, Present and Future of the global Criminal Court.Red.A. Heinze, V. E. Dittrich.Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2021. XXI, 783 pp.;Comment on global Criminal Court: Statute.Volume 1. Red.: M. Klamberg, J. Nilsson, A. Angotti.2nd editionBrussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic Publisher, 2023. 1104 p.4 See Regulation No 361-rp of the president of the Russian Federation of 16.11.2016 "On the intention of the Russian Federation not to be a organization to the Statute of the Roman global Criminal Court" // president of Russia.Available at: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/41387 (accessed: 04.02.2025).See besides the Communication of the Government of the Russian Federation to the UN Secretary-General received on 30.11.2016: Statute of the Roman global Criminal Court: Rome, July 17, 1998: [status on 14.02.2025 10:15:47 EDT] // Collection of United Nations Treaties.Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&clang=_en#9 (access date: 14.02.2025).
5 See for example: global Law and the Fight against Crime / pref.A. V. Zmeevskii, Yu.M. Kolosov.M., 1997. (in Russian) 6 W. Schabas writes about the ICC as follows: “Only a fewer completed cases matter. Many defendants are irrelevant people in small known conflicts. In prison sentences of 12 or 13 years, it is hard to believe that the Court deals with "those who bear the top responsibility" for "the most serious crimes of interest to the full global community" (Schabas W. A. Op. cit. P. 19). 7 Bosco D. Why is the global Criminal Court only picking on Africa? (March 29, 2013) // The Washington Post. Available at:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-the-international-criminal-court-picking-only-on-africa/2013/03/29/cb9bf5da-96f7-11e2-97cd-3d8c1afe4f0f_story.html (accessed: 04.02.2025). 8 See Bachmann S.-D.D., Soviet-Adjei N. A. Controversy of the African Union and the global Criminal Court before the global Court of Justice: a road forward to strengthen global criminal justice?/ Washington global Law Journal.Vol. 29. 2020. No.2. P. 249. 9 Ibid.P. 249–250.10 Membership of the Philippines at the global Criminal Court is coming to an end // Coalition for the global Criminal CourtCourt.Available at: https://coalitionfortheicc.org/news/20190315/philippines-leaves-icc#:~:text=As%20of%2017%20March%2C%20the,after%20Burundi%20withdrew%20in%202017 (accessed: 04.02.2025).11 For more details on war crimes in Afghanistan, see: Ning Y. How US evades work for war crimes in Afghanistan // Global Times.Available at: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1235240.shtml (accessed: 14.02.2025).12 Preparation Chamber II: Situation in the muslim Republic of Afghanistan, No. ICC-02/17 // global Criminal Court.Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-02/17-33 (accessed: 04.02.2025).1ł Appeal Chamber: Situation in the muslim Republic of Afghanistan, No. ICC-02/17 OA4 // global Criminal Court.Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_00828.PDF (accessed: 04.02.2025).14 global Criminal Court: US sanctions in consequence to a war crimes investigation in Afghanistan // Congressional investigation Service.Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11428 (accessed: 04.02.2025).15 global Criminal Court: US sanctions in consequence to a war crimes investigation in Afghanistan // Congressional investigation Service.Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11428 (accessed: 04.02.2025).
16 Political and legal scientists have not reached a consensus on the word "sanctions" (see Pyatibratov I. S. Sanctions and unilateral restrictive measures: The problem of delineation of terms and identities of phenomena of Gumanitarye sciences. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta. 2020. Vol. 10, No. 6. S. 64. (in Russian)).However, the application of "sanctions" to restrictive measures taken unilaterally by States without the applicable decision of the UN safety Council has been criticised respective times by any scientists (see, for example, Ryzhova M. V. economical sanctions in modern global law Summary of the doctoral dissertation under Kazan law. S. 8. (in Russian); Kritskiy K. V. The terms ‘international sanctions’ and ‘unilateral restrictive measures’. Moskovsky hurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava. 2016. No. 2. S. 2. (in Russian); Kritskiy K. V. Sanctions and unilateral restrictive measures in modern global law Doctoral Discourse from Moscow law. S. 10. (In Russian); Alexeeva D. G., Alimova Y. O., Barzilova I. S. Law under sanctions / M. V. Mazhorina, B. A. Shakhnazarov (ed.). Moscow, possible Publ. S.93–94.(In Russian).This criticism is justified: while the word ‘sanction’ is seen as a coercion measurement in the event of a crime, i.e. a lawful measure, restrictive measures taken by States unilaterally without a UN safety Council decision are not always lawful.In this respect, it is at least inaccurate to call the second "sanctions" in the legal sense.It is not accidental that the coercion measures adopted by the UN safety Council are frequently referred to as "sanctions" in UN documents, whereas the regimes created by these measures are called "sanction regimes" (see paper A/56/10: study of the Committee on global Law from the work of the fiftieth 3rd session (23 April – 1 June and 2 July – 10 August 2001) // yearly of the Committee on global Law. 2001. Volume II. S. 2. p. 78; Resolution 2170 (2014), adopted by the safety Council at its 7242nd meeting, on 15 August 2014 (S/RES/2170). Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/777420/files/S_RES_2170%282014%29-RU.pdf?ln=ru (accessed: 06.03.2025);United Nations safety Council ancillary bodies // Information sheets.Available at: https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/sites/default/files/subsidiary_organs_series_7sep23_.pdf (accessed: 06.03.20205).On the contrary, in any UN acts the word "sanctions" is not utilized in relation to unilateral coercion measures (see, for example, the Human Rights Resolution and unilateral coercion measures), adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2016 (A/RES/71/193). Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/857550/files/A_RES_71_193-RU.pdf?ln=ru (accessed: 06.03.20205)).However, in political and journalistic discourses, specified measures are sometimes referred to as "sanctions" (see: Georgyan K. "Unilateral" and global law // The global Affairs. Available at: https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/720 (accessed: 06.03.2025). (In Russian)).In this article, for convenience, the word ‘sanctions’ is used, inter alia, to find unilateral coercion measures applied by States without a UN safety Council decision.17 Blocking the property of any persons associated with the global Criminal Court designations // Office of abroad Assets Control.Available at: https://ofac.treaty.gov/recent-actions/20200902 (accessed: 05.02.2025);The US impose sanctions on the highest officials of the global Criminal Court // The Guardian.Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/sep/02/us-sanctions-international-criminal-court-fatou-bensouda (accessed: 05.02.2025).Implementing Regulation N 13928 was subsequently repealed (see Implementing Regulation 14022 of 1 April 2021). "Continuation of the state of emergency with respect to the global Criminal Court" // national Register. Available at: https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/57411/download?inline (accessed: 05.02.2025)).
18 Application of sanctions to the global Criminal Court: Executive Regulation of 6 February 2025 // White House.Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/ (accessed: 14.02.2025).19 Ibid.20 Ibid.21 Ibid.22 Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue warrants for the arrest of Vladimir Vladimir Putin and Maria Alexeyevny Lvova-Bielova // global Criminal Court.Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-Ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and (accessed: 05.02.2025).See also: Problems with the legality of the global Criminal Court: Problems with the legality of the global Criminal Court (Opinion of the Advisory Council on global Law at the Ministry of abroad Affairs of the Russian Federation), // Ministry of abroad Affairs of the Russian Federation.Available at: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/legal_problems_of-international_cooperation/1949021/ (accessed: 05.02.2025);Opinion of the Advisory Council on global Law at the Ministry of abroad Affairs of the Russian Federation: Problems of the legality of the global Criminal Court [translation]Students V. V. Pchelintseva and A. M. Korzhenyak) // Moscow diary of global Law.2024. No. 2. pp. 92–104.2l As major actors of global law, states may, on the basis of agreements between themselves, establish an entity derived from global law, specified as intergovernmental organisation, global justice, etc. The powers of that derivative are defined by the countries that established it.See Shaw M. N. global Law.6th editionNew York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. p. 1303. In this respect, J. Klabbers rightly said of global organisations: “Organizations are the creations of their associate States...” (Klabbers J. global Law. 2nd Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. p. 92).24 Appellate Chamber: Situation in Darfur, Sudan: in the case of Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir: judgement in the case of Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal, No ICC-02/05-01/09 OA2, 6 May 2019, paragraph.114 // global Criminal Court.Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2019_02856.PDF (accessed: 14.02.2025).25 See: there, mouth.117. 26 The existence of this Convention in global law has been confirmed by the global Court of Justice.See: Arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v Belgium), judgment, I.C.J.Reports 2002, p. 3, paragraph 51. 27 See paper A/6309/Rev.1: Reports of the global Commission of Law from the second part of its seventeenth session and from its eighteenth session // yearly of the global Commission of Law, 1966. Volume II.New York: United Nations, 1967. S. 226.
28 Preparations for an unconstitutional coup in Kiev, instructions given to the rebels by the U.S. Embassy are described in item in the book of erstwhile Prime Minister of Ukraine N. Azarov, who had previously collaborated with the legally elected president of Ukraine, W. Yanukovych.See Azarov N. Ukraine at the crossroads.Notes of the Prime Minister of Moscow, Veche Publ, 2015. 512 p. (in Russian) 29 A specialist UN institution, Russia of which is simply a member.Information about the IMF can be found on its website: About the IMF // global Monetary Fund.Available at: https://www.imp.org/en/About (accessed: 05.02.2025).th0 NGO.Founded in 1873. More details on his website: About the Institute // Institut de Droit International.Available at: https://www.idi-iil.org/en/a-propos/ (accessed: 05.02.2025).lp See Articles 1, 5 (Definition of aggression: [Annex to UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14.12.1974]. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/190983/files/A_RES_3314%28XXIX%29-RU.pdf?ln=ru (accessed: 14.02.20205).l2 authoritative visit to Mongolia // president of Russia.Available at: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/trips/75016 (accessed: 05.02.2025).ICC: The refusal to arrest Putin by Mongolia was submitted for consideration to the United Nations Assembly.Available at: https://news.un.org/ru/story/2024/10/1457701 (accessed: 05.02.2025).4 “To flourish and not to perish” (in Latin).L5 Preparatory Chamber II: Situation in Ukraine.Judgment under Article 87(7) The Rome Statute on Mongolia's failure to comply with the Court's request to cooperate in the arrest and release of Vladimir Vladimir Putin and to mention the case to the Assembly of States Parties, No. ICC-01/22, 24 October 2024, paragraph.34. global Criminal Court.Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd1809d1971.pdf (accessed: 05.02.2025).ł6 Korea – Definitive Safetyguard measurement on Imports of Certain Dairy Products: study of the Appellate Body (adopted 12 January 2000), AB-1999-8 (WT/DS98/AB/R), paragraph.80. 7 Preparatory Chamber I. Situation in Darfur, Sudan: Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No. ICC-02/05-01/09, 13 December 2011, paragraph.37. // global Criminal Court.Available at: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/8c9d80/pdf (accessed: 05.02.2025).8 See, for example: Ispolinov A. S. Anatomy of the crisis: problems of the normative legitimacy of the global criminal court // Order.2024. No 2. pp. 130–131.(in Russian);Kjeldgaard-Pedersen A. Is the quality of the legal justification of the global Criminal Court an obstacle to its ability to deter global offences?// iCourts: iCourts Working Paper Series.2020. No. 191. pp. 15–17.Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3570447_code2133408.pdf?abstractid=3570447&mirid=1&type=2 (accessed: 05.02.2025);Tladi D. Decisions of the global Criminal Court on Chad and Malawi: on cooperation, immunity and Article 98 // diary of global Criminal Justice.Volume 11. 2013. No. 1. S. 199–221;Van Alebeek R. Immunity of States and Their Officials in global Criminal Law and global Human Rights Law.Oxford;New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. S. 278.
9 Scientists believe that ‘... the architecture of the Court is seriously flawed’ seems justified (Schabas W. A. Op. cit. P. 19).40 Preparatory Chamber II: Situation in Ukraine.Judgment under Article 87(7) The Rome Statute on Mongolia's failure to comply with the Court's request to cooperate in the arrest and release of Vladimir Vladimir Putin and to mention the case to the Assembly of States Parties, No ICC-01/22, 24 October 2024, paragraph.28. 41 Ibid., paragraph.6, 29, 30. 42 See: there, mouth.38 and findings.See: Arrest warrant for ICC?No worries for Bashir of Sudan who visited 22 countries in 7 years. planet Tribune: Window to the Real World.Available at: https://www.worldtribune.com/icc-arrest-warrant-no-worms-for-sudans-bashir-who-visited-22-country-in-7-years/ (accessed: 14.02.2025);Nuba Reports.Sudanese president made 74 trips around the planet in 7 years since he was wanted for war crimes // Quartz.Available at: https://qz.com/africa/630571/sudans-president-has-made-74-trips-across-the-world-in-the-seven-years-hes-been-wanted-for-war-crimes (accessed: 14.02.2025).44 Preparatory Chamber I: Situation in the Republic of the Philippines: Decision on the Prosecutor's request for an investigation pursuant to Article 15(3) of the Statute, No ICC-01/21///International Criminal Court.Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2021_08044.PDF (accessed 18.03.2025).45 See Ibid.111. 46 Arrest of Filatov S. Duterte and his implications for the Philippines, USA and China // global Affairs.Available at: https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/50683 (accessed: 18.03.2025);Smith T. global Criminal Court in the Philippines active in clan rivalry // Justiceinfo.net.Available at: https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/140756-icc-caught-clan-rivalry-philippines.html (accessed 18.03.2025).47 Smith T. Op.cit. 48 U.S. president Joe Biden accused Russia of violating the Charter of the United Nations due to the fact that she allegedly "conducted a brutal, unnecessary war" against Ukraine ("President Biden ... accused Russia of violating the United Nations global charter in its "brutal, unnecessary war" against Ukraine"). See: Biden in a speech in the United Nations accuses Russia of "extraordinarily significant" violation of the global charter // Fox News.Available at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-un-speech-accuses-russia-extremelia-significant-violation-international-charter (accessed: 05.02.2025).49 The planet responds to Russia's invasion of Ukraine // Lawfare.Available at: https://www.lawfare-media.org/article/world-reacts-russias-invasion-Ukraine (accessed: 05.02.2025).50 message by the G7 leaders on the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation armed forces // Council of the European Union.Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/02/24/g7-leaders-statement-on-the-invasion-of-Ukraine-by-armed-forces-of-the-Russian-federation/ (accessed: 14.02.2025).
51 Macky Sall, president of the African Union and president of Senegal, and Moussa Faki Mahamat, president of the African Union Commission, in peculiar called on the Russian Federation to "...absolutely respect global law, territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Ukraine" (Declaration by president of the African Union, J.E. president Macky Sall and president of the UA J.E. Moussa Faki Mahamata Commission, on the situation in Ukraine // African Union. Available at: https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20220224/african-union-statement-situation-Ukraine (accessed: 05.02.20205).52 By immunity, ‘ratone mattere’ means immunity from abroad criminal justice in relation to an authoritative of the State in respect of activities which that individual performs under the mandate and which can be described as ‘formal activities’.5l Subject substance of “ratione personae” immunity: head of state, head of government and minister of abroad affairs are immunity from criminal justice of a abroad state.The "ratione personae" immunity is automatically recognised, in accordance with the rule of global law, for public authorities which the State represents in global relations.This immunity is applied to all actions (both private and formal) committed by representatives of the State.54 Arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v Belgium), judgment, I.C.J.Reports 2002, p. 3, paragraph.51. 55 See for example: Ispolinov A. S. Trying on the ringing of Omnipotence: The global Criminal Court and the Immunities of Heads of State // Rossiiskii iuridichej czurnal.2023. No. 2. S. 40, 52–53.(in Russian);Akande D. global Law, Immunities and global Criminal Court // The American diary of global Law.2004. Volume 98. No. 1.3. S. 410–411, 421. 56 In its decision not to comply with the Court’s request for arrest and surrender of Omar Al-Bashir, the Preparatory Chamber, referring to the same paragraph 51 of the judgement of the global Court of Justice of 14 February 2002 on ‘The Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000’, stated: ‘The Chamber is incapable to identify a provision in the usual global law that would exclude immunity for Heads of State erstwhile their arrest is requested for global crimes by another State, even erstwhile the arrest is requested on behalf of an global court, including in peculiar that Court (Author: ICC)’ (Prepreparatory Chamber II. Situation in Darfur, Sudan: on the prosecutor's case against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir: Decision based on Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on theNon-execution by South Africa of the Court's request to arrest and issue Omar Al-Bashir, No ICC-02/05-01/09, No 6 July 2017, paragraph.68 // global Criminal Court.Available at: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68ffc1/pdf (accessed: 15.02.2020)).57 States Parties to the Rome Statute // global Criminal Court.Available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties (accessed: 05.02.2025).58 United Nations Charter: position as of 14-02-2025 10:15:47 EDT // Collection of United Nations Treaties.Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-1&chapter=1&clang=_en (accessed: 14.02.2025).59 From the position of population data in non-EU countries, this is the majority of the Earth population. population.
ReferencesArrest of Filatov S. Duterte and his implications for the Philippines, USA and China.The global Affairs.March 15, 2025. Available at: https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/50683 (accessed: 18.03.2025). (In Russian)
Georgyan, Kirill.2012. "Unilateral Sanctions" and global Law.The global Affairs 8. Available at: https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/720 (accessed: 06.03.2025).(in Russian) International Law and the Fight against Crime.Collection of Documents.1997. Zmeevskii A. V., Kolosov Yu.M. (introd.).Moscow.(in Russian) Ispolinov, Aleksey S. 2023. Trying on the ringing of Omnipotence: The global Criminal Court and the Immunities of Heads of State.Rossiiskii iuridichejskii zhurnal 2: 37–58.(in Russian) Ispolinov, Aleksey S. 2024. Anatomy of the crisis: problems with the normative legitimacy of the global criminal court.Law 2: 124–132.(in Russian) Kjeldgaard-Pedersen, Astrid.2020. Is the quality of the legal justification of the ICC an obstacle to its ability to deter global offences?iCourts: iCourts Working Paper Series 191. 29 pp. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRNA_ID3570447_code2133408.pdf?abstractid=3570447&mirid=1&type=2 (accessed: 05.02.2025).Klabbers, January 2017. global law.2nd editionCambridge, Cambridge University Press.370 p.Kritskiy, Kirill V. 2016. The terms "international sanctions" and "unilateral restrictive measures".Moscow zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava 2: 204–213.(in Russian) Kritskiy, Kirill V. 2019. Sanctions and unilateral restrictive measures in modern global law.Doctor's degree from the law.Moscow.186 p. (In Russian) Ning Yu.How the U.S. avoids work for war crimes in Afghanistan.Global Times.Available at: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1235240.shtml (accessed: 14.02.2025).Pyatibratov, Ivan S. 2020. Sanctions and unilateral restrictive measures: the problem of delineating deadlines and identity of phenomena.Gumanitarian teachings.Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta 10 (6): 61–65.(in Russian) Ryzhova, Maria V. 2006. economical sanctions in modern global law.Summary of the doctoral dissertation from the law.Sermon.25 p. (In Russian) Schabas, William A. 2020. Chapter 1: Dynamics of the Roman Conference.Elgar Companion to the global Criminal Court.de Guzman M., Oosterveld V. (ed.).Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited;Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.: 3–19.Shaw, Malcolm N. 2008. global law.6th editionNew York, Cambridge University Press.CLXVI.1542 p. Smith T. global Criminal Court active in clan rivalry in the Philippines.Justiceinfo.net.27 January 2025. Available at: https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/140756-icc-caught-clan-rivalry-philippines.html (accessed: 18.03.2025).Past, present and future of the global Criminal Court.2021. Heinze A., Dittrich V. E. (ed.).Brussels, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.XXI, 783 pp. Tladi, Dire.2013. Decisions of the global Criminal Court on Chad and Malawi: Cooperation, Immunities and Article 98. diary of global Criminal Justice 11 (1): 199–221.van Alebeek, Rosanne.2008. Immunity of States and their officials in global criminal law and global human rights law.Oxford;New York City, Oxford University Press.XXXVIII, 449 p. Article of Deputy president of the safety Council of the Russian Federation Dmitri Medvedev for the diary of the State University of St. Petersburg "Pravoveden"
Translated by Google Translator
source:https://www.rt.com/news/616171-lost-illusions-icc-nonentity/
