The ICC [International Criminal Court]:

A Western Hegemonic Front

Former President Rodrigo Duterte was probed recently by the ICC in relation too his Administration's Drug War Crackdown. And while Rodrigo himself is defiant in his strongman attitude against the ICC stating: "If you want me to go to prison, I will". But this'll be a grave injustice, the Probing by the ICC has little too do with his 'Drug War Crackdown', and more too do with fact he's one the most anti-American and pro-Filipino politicians in the Philippine Government, he's also the most loved and respected politician by the Philippine Masses that support his policy (86%), and the fact he's been pushing against Western Hegemony for majority of his Political Career, and cracking down on Comprador Corruption that festers the Government. It's very convenient that the probe came after he was no longer President because now he's not immune from charges, but why is it against the Law in apprehending Criminals? Especially Drug Lords that push Drugs upon other people too get them hooked, and are armed too the teeth too defend their Criminal Operations? Duterte said it best:

“Since when was it a crime for the head of a sovereign state, since when was it a crime for me to threaten criminals? I said, if you destroy my country, I will kill you. Is there a law against a president uttering such hostile words?”

So if Duterte goes too jail for practically cracking-down Criminal Operations and Drug Lords, why aren’t Western Politicians charged for their Imperialism in the Middle East? Heck, why isn’t the US not charged in the same manner with authorities MURDERING innocent Black Men, Women, and Children!? Why aren’t they charged for essentially GENTRIFICATION communities where Black People live and incarcerating them too be used for SLAVERY as shown in their 13th Amendment of the CONSTITUTION!? Why isn’t Israel hold too a greater standard since they’re literally committing GENOCIDE!? What about Syria where the US continues to occupy Syrian territory, stealing its oil resources and blockading grain imports? Take, for instance, what is occurring right now in Ukraine. There are demands that Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, be brought before the ICC and accused of war crimes. But, despite what we have all seen taking on for years in Yemen, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, no one has spoken out. Many war crimes have been perpetrated in these nations, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people; nonetheless, there have never been any significant appeals for the ICC to bring the offenders to justice!

Shamefully, anytime the prospect of holding Western leaders accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity has emerged, the governments of those countries have publicly threatened the ICC prosecutors with penalties, including jail. Yet, those with conscience can recognise this for what it is: a farce. This ridiculous attitude has split the globe. So absurd, in fact, that the haughty West no longer even bothers to cover up its abominable hypocrisy and double standards. Ukraine? The occupation is wrong, and it ought to be resisted. Palestine? The occupation is a "conflict" over territory, and Israel, which is the state under occupation, must be defended at all costs. There is currently growing concern that the ICC, which was created through the ratification of the Rome Statute in 1998, has structural flaws that cannot be fixed and has also become politicised. As a result, it has fallen short of the aspirations and goals of its forefathers.

After a protracted negotiating process motivated by a post-World War Two vision of the necessity to guarantee that those who committed the most heinous crimes against humanity would not enjoy impunity and immunity, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was finally founded. that they would stand trial in front of a neutral, unbiased international court. Unfortunately, and despite the best efforts of its creators, the court's very independence and impartiality—so essential and evident for any organisation as critical and significant—was tainted from the start by its constitutional ties to the UN.

The US has opposed ratifying and signing the Rome Statute because if it does, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be able to hold American military and political officials accountable for their conduct in accordance with the highest international standard of justice. In other words, the US would not be able to defend its nationals who are charged with crimes against humanity, such as deliberately killing innocent people caught in the crossfire, for instance. The US continues to insist that it wishes to defend the human rights of everyone in the globe. If the ICC is unable to bring US individuals to justice when they are accused of injuring the same people all over the world, there is no way to avoid the contradiction.

The US is reluctant to approve the Rome Statute and join the International Criminal Court for yet another reason. Washington is averse to having facts presented in public, which would allow Americans to learn what their military forces have done to common people across the world under their command. In the country of the free and the home of the brave, the leaders cannot ever let such to take place. Their definition of freedom excludes the pursuit of justice for those whose lives they have so ruthlessly and inhumanely ended.

Although legal analysts use a legal framework to evaluate the ICC system, this uses a political framework to look at how both foreign and local players have used the criminal justice system for their own ends. Even while the ICC system loves to claim that it solely intervenes based on legal standards, the Court is actually an instrument for coercion, control, manipulation, and dominion in the hands of both national governments and players with global hegemonic agendas. In order to further their own self-interests of pursuing foes and defending friends, national and international entities with hegemonic influence have politicised the judiciary. This further implies that the politicisation of international criminal justice becomes a sort of judicial imperialism within the context of international relations. In order to demonstrate how the ICC system has evolved into a compliant political instrument in the hands of the powerful, particularly the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council, this analysis examines the situations of Sudan and Kenya. The situations of Uganda and Côte d'Ivoire are also examined to show how the ICC system is a tool for national hegemonic goals.

References:

[1] Judicial Imperialism:nThe Politicisation of International Criminal Justice in Africa, Tim Murithi / http://www.ijr.org.za/home/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judicial-Imperialism-PDF-2019.pdf

[2] Is the International Criminal Court a Colonial Institution?, Centre for International and Regional Studies / https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/international-criminal-court-colonial-institution/

[3] By not investigating the U.S. for war crimes, the International Criminal Court shows colonialism still thrives in international law, Carleton Newsroom / https://newsroom.carleton.ca/story/icc-colonialism-thrives/

[4] Foreclosed Temporalities: Imperialism and International Criminal Law, CLT / https://criticallegalthinking.com/2022/11/18/foreclosed-temporalities-imperialism-and-international-criminal-law/

[5] U.S. Occupation and Siege Impose Starvation and Desperation on Syrians, Massachusetts Peace Action / https://masspeaceaction.org/us-occupation-imposes-syrian-desperation/

[6] The ICC is a tool of the arrogant, imperialist West, MEM / https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220601-the-icc-is-a-tool-of-the-arrogant-imperialist-west/

[7] The ICC: an instrument of imperialism, Crescent International / https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/the-icc-an-instrument-of-imperialism

[8] People in the Philippines Still Favor U.S. Over China, but Gap Is Narrowing Duterte and his war on drugs are seen positively by most Filipinos, Pews Research / https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/09/20171150/Pew-Research-Center_Philippines-Report_2017.09.21.pdf