When Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite the arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, was able to visit Mongolia on 3 September, the Western world reacted furiously. The United States, for example, called on Mongolia to keep supporting international law at all times, while the European Union strongly disapproved of Mongolia’s behavior and expressed its undivided support for the ICC.
This reaction is not very surprising. Mongolia has been a member of the ICC since 2000 and is obliged under the Rome Statute to arrest fugitives from the Court who enter its territory. Legally, therefore, it should have refused Putin entrance to their country or arrested him, just like South Africa did earlier this year when the Russian president was not welcome at a BRICS summit they organized. Mongolia’s behavior is even more remarkable in view of a statement that they recently supported, which unequivocally endorsed the independence and integrity of the ICC. All this seems to suggest that Mongolia supports international law only when it suits their interests, but not when it discredits one of their major trading partners.
Double standards
This is obviously a bad thing, but the United States and many EU countries are not blameless themselves. In May of this year, when Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the ICC, issued an arrest warrant for Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, this evoked a lot of criticism. Although some European countries such as Belgium, Spain and France supported the decision, the United States and many European countries strongly criticized it. Germany, for example, accused Khan of putting Netanyahu on an equal footing with Hamas, while President Biden of the United States called the arrest warrant “outrageous.” In the United States, the House of Representatives even passed a bill to impose sanctions on the ICC.
Thus, while these countries criticize Mongolia, they themselves do not even fully respect the authority of the ICC. This shows that many Western countries want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to accuse other countries of crimes by using international law, while they discredit the Court when other countries are using it against them. In this way, international law becomes a political game, where it is more important to have strong allies than whether you have actually done anything wrong.
Justice for everyone
This is not the first time that the ICC and international law have been the topic of scandal. In 2016, South Africa seriously considered giving up their membership of the Court, because, in their view, it focused almost exclusively on criminals from the African continent. This would make the Court a kind of neo-colonial institution through which the West imposes its laws on African countries. Amnesty International joined this criticism, stressing that up to that time, almost all persecuted people came from Africa, while most offenders from Europe or the US were never actually convicted. This obviously undermines confidence in international law, or at least the application of it.
Fortunately, South Africa did not leave the ICC and is now taking the initiative themselves. In December 2023 it sued Israel for genocide in Gaza at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In addition to this, Nicaragua has already followed South Africa by suing Germany for their assistance in Israel’s alleged genocide. Leaving aside whether these charges are justified or not, this is a good development for international law. It shows that the law applies equally to the West as it does to the rest of the world, ensuring that countries like South Africa and Nicaragua can also effectively participate in the execution of justice. Perhaps countries like Israel and Germany do not like this, but it is still better for everyone in the long run. International law gains in credibility this way.
No one is above the law
Of course, this does not alter the fact that an institution like the ICC cannot facilitate arrests and remains dependent on member states to comply with arrest warrants. Moreover, not all countries have signed the Rome Statute either, which obliges them to extradite convicted criminals to the ICC. For this reason, some offenders still go free, but this is no reason to criticize the ICC itself. Instead, we should hold member states and countries that are not yet members accountable for their behavior.
Thus, while Mongolia certainly deserves criticism, so do countries like Germany and the United States. These are powerful countries that constantly shield their allies from persecution and think that they themselves are above the law. This is, of course, hugely unfair. The purpose of international law is precisely that vulnerable individuals and territories can defend themselves against a stronger or larger group. That is also the beauty of the ICC. Without such organizations the right of the strongest prevails and countries like Russia can do as they please. We must prevent this at all costs to make sure that not only the people of the most powerful countries can live in safety.
A critical examination of ourselves
If the ICC functions properly, impunity will be decreased and anyone on earth can be arrested for their crimes. This not only has a deterring effect, but also makes it possible for victims to get justice. Putin’s reception in Mongolia indicates that this is currently not the case. However, this does not mean that it is enough to merely criticize Mongolia. We also have to look at ourselves. When even the countries that say they actively support the ICC start questioning its decisions, something is going very wrong. This shows that they care more about their political alliances than about international law. Why, then, would Mongolia invoke the anger of their much more powerful neighbor by arresting Putin? Only when no one is above the law can everyone be protected by international law. The ICC plays a crucial role here that should not be taken lightly.
Rights should not only be applied when they are convenient, but precisely when it is extremely hard to do so. At such moments, countries that support international law should stand behind the ICC more than ever, without giving in to pressure from their allies. Mongolia, Germany and the United States have unfortunately failed to do so, but there is hope. If all countries would follow South Africa’s example, the support for the ICC and international law can be increased and maintained.
Written by Guido Boven
