The pursuit of justice and the desire to hold the powerful accountable for crimes against the public good and humanity have long united people across the world. However, not all institutions claiming to embody this ideal are worthy of continued existence — the International Criminal Court (ICC) being a case in point.

The ICC suffers from serious legal flaws rooted in its founding document, the Rome Statute, including internal contradictions and inconsistencies with the UN Charter. These deficiencies, coupled with the Court’s political bias, selective application of justice, and its controversial issuance of arrest warrants for heads of sovereign states not party to the Statute, often ignored by many nations, highlight its institutional failure. Rather than functioning as a neutral arbiter of international justice, the ICC has arguably become a tool for politically motivated legal actions.

Given this reality, the Court is on a path toward irrelevance. Its judges, prosecutors, and other officials who have issued unlawful decisions may be held accountable under Russian criminal law. Furthermore, in light of the ICC’s shortcomings, stakeholders may consider the establishment of a new international criminal court free from such flaws. This new body should be grounded in universally recognized principles of international law, with jurisdiction over crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of terrorism.

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi (What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a cow)

The world keeps changing, and not always for the better. We have witnessed the rapid degradation of many supranational legal structures, which have fallen victim to their dependence on the will, funding, and values of the so-called collective West. This is true, for instance, for the Hague Criminal Court. The good intentions that guided those who established it two decades ago have evidently paved the road to hell. The further, the more so.

The establishment of international criminal tribunals after the Second World War marked the first historic attempt to uphold the rule of law on a global scale — to achieve justice and real equality beyond national, economic, and ideological boundaries.  The ICC has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. However, its jurisdiction is not universal. It only applies to crimes committed on the territory of member states or by their citizens.

Over time, the ICC showed political bias and committed serious violations of established principles of international law. As a result, in 2016, Russia decided not to become a party to the Rome Statute. The United States and several other countries made similar decisions. Notably, China never signed the Statute. This means that three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are not part of the ICC.

The international community initially had high hopes for the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC). However, from the outset, its legal framework raised concerns. The Rome Statute, the Court’s founding document, contained inconsistencies, most notably, its contradictions with international law, especially the UN Charter, which forms the basis of post-war global legal order.

The ICC’s judicial actions have long raised questions, not only among legal scholars but also the broader international community. Over time, the Court has increasingly appeared influenced by political and ideological pressures, often aligning with the interests of the so-called collective West. This has led to double standards, including favorable treatment toward countries like the United States, which itself has shown little regard for the ICC.

One recent example is the ICC’s consideration of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. European ICC members initially supported the move, but quickly backed down after strong US pressure, calling the case “exceptional” and refusing to pursue it. Such blatant politicization, critics argue, should have prompted the Court to dissolve itself.

The issuance of arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for sitting heads of sovereign states has marked, for many, the height of legal overreach and ineffectiveness. A notable example is the warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin over the situation in Ukraine. ICC officials were undoubtedly aware that such decisions would bear no practical consequence, except perhaps for serving propagandistic purposes aligned with Western interests.

It would be misguided to assume the judges and officials of the ICC are unaware of international law or the limits of their jurisdiction. On the contrary, they are experienced legal professionals. Yet the Court has not hesitated to engage in what critics describe as ideological posturing, especially when targeting leaders from non-Western countries.

The Rome Statute, which established the ICC, is itself a product of legal compromise. Article 27 states that immunity for heads of state does not bar the Court from exercising jurisdiction. However, Article 98 requires the Court to secure cooperation from the state concerned before proceeding, especially when immunity is involved. Despite this, the ICC has proceeded to issue arrest warrants for acting heads of sovereign states, typically from outside the Western sphere, without the consent of those states.

It is important to underscore several points. First, regardless of how one interprets Articles 27 and 98, the issuance of arrest warrants for heads of sovereign states by the ICC arguably violates international law, primarily the UN Charter.

Second, targeting a head of state, especially one from a permanent member of the UN Security Council, undermines that state’s sovereign functions and could impede its leadership’s official duties. 

Third, the ICC’s disregard for the fact that three of the five permanent Security Council members—China, Russia, and the United States—are not parties to the Rome Statute raises further legal concerns. Under Article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no treaty can impose obligations on states that have not consented to it.

Finally, any attempt to constrain the activities of a Security Council permanent member risks paralyzing the UN’s central peacekeeping organ. In a world already teetering on the brink of large-scale conflict, the ICC’s unilateral legal actions may exacerbate geopolitical tensions. As such, responsibility for any increased risk to global stability must also be borne by the officials of the ICC who pursued these controversial decisions.

It is well known that even before issuing a controversial arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, the ICC frequently undertook politically charged actions aligned with its Western backers. Following the 2014 coup in Kyiv, backed by the United States, and the subsequent refusal of Crimean and Donbass residents to recognize the new regime, Russia acted to protect its compatriots amid ongoing shelling and what it deemed genocide. The ICC, however, chose not to analyze these events within any meaningful legal framework and instead supported the legal narrative advanced by the West.

In March 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for President Putin and Russia’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights—a move that lacked robust legal grounding. Western countries cite the 1974 UN definition of aggression as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty... of another State,” which may incur international responsibility. However, this interpretation ignored that the 2014 coup in Ukraine, facilitated by foreign interference, violated Article 2(7) of the UN Charter. Following this event, Ukraine could no longer be considered fully sovereign.

International law also permits the use of force in self-defense, including preventively, which does not qualify as aggression. Most importantly, under the UN Charter, only the Security Council—not the ICC or the General Assembly—is empowered to determine acts of aggression. This requires the consent of all five permanent members, including Russia.

Notably, even Rome Statute signatories are not universally compliant. In September 2024, President Putin visited Mongolia, an ICC member, without incident. The visit concluded successfully, prompting the ICC to rebuke Mongolia for failing to fulfill its obligations. The Court’s claim to act in defense of international law seems hollow when it undermines sovereign functions and risks paralyzing the UN Security Council’s peacekeeping capacity

The ICC’s accusation that Mongolia violated the Rome Statute by failing to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin highlights a deep legal and political controversy. The ICC claimed that any bilateral obligation Mongolia owed Russia did not supersede its obligations to the Court. However, this interpretation either extends the Statute’s provisions to non-party states or violates customary international law; there is no middle ground.

The 2019 Russia-Mongolia Treaty explicitly requires both parties to abstain from actions against each other, underscoring Mongolia’s legal basis for non-compliance. Despite this, the ICC condemned Mongolia for obstructing justice—yet imposed no sanctions, reflecting its pattern of ineffectiveness. 

More concerning is how ICC action can serve political motives. The arrest of ex-Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, following the ICC’s disputed jurisdiction over events predating the country’s 2019 withdrawal from the Statute, appeared to be a political maneuver by the Marcos administration. The ICC thus risks becoming a tool in domestic power struggles, as seen in the Philippines, and broader geopolitical conflicts. The arrest warrants for Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova exemplify the ICC's instrumentalization by the West amid escalating hostility toward Russia.

The West’s accusations of Russian aggression, supported by G7, NATO, and the African Union, have found their way into judicial proceedings, even though General Assembly resolutions are not binding. Legal accusations, even when unsubstantiated, demand a serious rebuttal. Russia maintains that its actions in Donbass were in defense of a region attacked by an illegitimate regime post-2014. Only the UN Security Council can legally determine aggression, not international courts acting under political influence.

The ICC encroachment on the sovereignty of a state that is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, specifically through demands for the arrest of its head of state, must be considered a violation of international law. First, under Article 24 of the UN Charter, the Security Council holds primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.

The President of the Russian Federation, as the sitting head of a sovereign state, enjoys full immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction, both ratione materiae and ratione personae. Unless this immunity is explicitly waived, international courts have no jurisdiction over a head of state. The International Court of Justice affirmed this in its 2002 ruling on the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, confirming that heads of state enjoy immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction in foreign states.

Article 27 of the Rome Statute, which nullifies immunity for heads of state, contradicts established principles of customary international law and the UN Charter, including the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in domestic affairs.

As of February 2025, only 125 of the 193 UN member states are parties to the Rome Statute. Notably, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—Russia, China, and the United States—are not. Many influential non-Western countries, including Indonesia, are also not parties. Consequently, the ICC cannot claim to represent the international community as a whole.

Looking forward, an alternative international criminal justice system could be developed, perhaps within BRICS, grounded in universal legal norms, including absolute immunity for sitting officials. Such a court could focus on prosecuting serious crimes like genocide, war crimes, and terrorism, while avoiding the ICC’s current political pitfalls. Until then, the ICC, in its current form, remains ineffective and politicized, unfit to fulfill its founding mandate.

----

Article by Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the United Russia party

This opinion piece was originally published in the Russian legal journal Pravovedenie in May 2025.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author.