- In March 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of war crimes related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite this, Mr Putin has continued his international diplomatic engagements, even travelling to countries such as Mongolia without fear of immediate arrest. This situation illustrates the complex and evolving nature of the application of international law, diplomacy and global power dynamics.The limits to the application of international law
- At the heart of this conundrum is the very real limit to the ICC’s ability to enforce its decisions. As an institution, the ICC only has jurisdiction in countries that have ratified the Rome Statute, its founding treaty. Russia, in particular, is not a signatory, which means that the ICC cannot compel the Russian authorities to cooperate in any legal proceedings against Mr Putin. More importantly, even among the ICC’s 123 member states, the execution of its mandates depends on the willingness of national governments to comply. There is no global police force capable of executing ICC warrants across borders.Mongolia’s decision to welcome Putin, despite the ICC’s warrant, highlights this gap in the application of the law. As a non-signatory to the Rome Statute, Mongolia is not legally obliged to arrest Putin, even if the warrant exists. However, the situation becomes more complex if we consider those Member States that are bound by international law but may choose not to act for political or economic reasons.
- Geopolitical realities and legal ideals
- The case of Mongolia illustrates a wider challenge in the application of international law: the tension between legal obligations and geopolitical realities. Mongolia, a small country wedged between two powerful neighbors – Russia and China – finds itself in a precarious position. It is heavily dependent on Russia for its energy imports and trade, making its relationship with Moscow crucial to national security and economic stability.
- In these circumstances, the execution of an ICC warrant would risk serious diplomatic and economic consequences, demonstrating that small nations often prioritize their immediate national interests over broader international legal commitments.This is not an isolated phenomenon. African and Asian countries have always criticized the ICC, accusing it of focusing disproportionately on the prosecution of Southern leaders, while turning a blind eye to Western powers. For many countries, respect for ICC decisions is weighed against the potential fallout from the wrath of a major global player like Russia.
- Perception of bias in international institutions
- Criticism that the ICC selectively targets non-Western leaders, while powerful Western nations remain largely immune from prosecution, has long fueled skepticism about the Court. This perception of bias has eroded the credibility of the ICC, particularly in the countries of the South, many of which see the institution as an extension of Western political interests. This scepticism hampers the Court’s ability to function as a truly global arbiter of justice.In Putin’s case, this perception of bias has probably influenced the reluctance of some nations to act on the ICC’s mandate. Leaders of countries critical of the Court may see Putin’s indictment as yet another example of the West using international institutions to exert political pressure, while similar actions by Western powers are ignored.
- Power dynamics in international relations
- While international law aims to create a system of rules that apply equally to all nations, the reality of global politics is often different. Russia’s ability to conduct diplomatic visits, despite the ICC’s mandate, highlights the continuing importance of traditional power dynamics in shaping international relations. Russia’s military and economic clout, as well as its right of veto in the UN Security Council, give it considerable influence on the international stage.
- This influence can sometimes overshadow legal considerations.Small nations like Mongolia are well aware of this power dynamic. The prospect of alienating a powerful neighbor like Russia, with which they share important economic ties, often outweighs the desire to adhere strictly to international legal norms. This reflects a wider challenge facing the ICC: when powerful nations refuse to recognize its authority, its ability to enforce international law is severely limited.
- Selective application and double standards
- The selective enforcement of international law is evident in the ICC’s lack of action against Rwandan President Paul Kagame, despite multiple reports implicating Rwanda in supporting the M23 rebels, who are responsible for atrocities in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Key reports include:
- United Nations Group of Experts Report (2012), which provided evidence of Rwanda’s direct support to M23 through arms and logistical aid.
- Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented Rwanda’s backing of M23 and their role in mass killings and displacement.
- International Crisis Group highlighted Rwanda’s involvement in the conflict, stressing Kagame’s role in destabilizing eastern DRC.
- Despite these findings, Kagame has never been targeted by the ICC, raising concerns over selective justice. Critics argue that Rwanda’s geopolitical importance and its relationships with Western powers shield Kagame from prosecution, unlike other African leaders who have been quickly indicted. This double standard undermines the ICC’s credibility.
- The decline of the liberal international order?
- The situation surrounding Putin’s tenure at the ICC can also be seen as a broader challenge to the post-World War II liberal international order. This order, characterized by institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the ICC, was built on the ideals of global cooperation, human rights and the rule of law. In recent years, however, there has been growing resistance to what some nations perceive as a Western-dominated system of governance.
- Russia, along with other rising powers such as China, has openly criticized the liberal international order, arguing instead for a multipolar world where sovereignty and non-interference take precedence over global legal frameworks. Mongolia’s decision to welcome Putin despite the ICC’s mandate is indicative of this shift, with nations increasingly favoring bilateral relations and traditional diplomacy over adherence to international norms.
- The future of international cooperation
- Ultimately, the ICC’s challenge lies in its dependence on soft power – the moral authority and cooperation of states – to enforce its decisions. Unlike national courts, which can enforce their decisions through law enforcement agencies, the ICC depends on the voluntary cooperation of its member states. The Mongolian episode demonstrates the limits of this approach in a world where divergent interests, power dynamics and economic pressures often outweigh legal obligations.
- If the ICC is to remain relevant in the changing landscape of international relations, reform may be necessary. Suggestions for improvement range from strengthening the Court’s investigative powers to combating perceived bias in its operations. Some have even called for a reassessment of the liberal international order itself, arguing for a more inclusive system that better reflects the interests of non-Western nations.
- The resilience of traditional diplomacy
- Despite the rise of international legal frameworks such as the ICC, the situation with Putin demonstrates that traditional diplomacy remains a crucial tool in international relations. For countries like Mongolia, the need to balance competing interests – maintaining good relations with Russia, upholding international law and dealing with economic realities – reflects the complexity of global governance in a multipolar world.As international law continues to evolve, the challenge will be to find ways of reconciling legal ideals and geopolitical realities in a way that fosters greater global cooperation and justice.
Author: RUYANGE Jean-Fraterne is a passionate journalist, writer, and web activist using storytelling to advocate for social justice and equal rights. Co-founder @pashayouthhub | Founder @StreamingAsylum. Kimpa Vita Press East-Africa correspondent