International criminal court and Russia: to be or not to be together

INTRODUCTION. The creation of the International Criminal Court in 1998 boosted significantly the interests of practitioners and researchers as regards international criminal law and procedure. It was the very first time when the permanent international court dealing with crimes of the concern of the international community was created. Twenty years being passed but the formal quantitative results of the Court coupled with disputes as regards Court’s role and status, skepticism and disappointment of his work provoked an overall critic and negligence. It was aggravated by the direct critic delivered by a few states. Some of them refused to become a party to the Rome Statute or withdrew its ratification thereof. The same was with the internal situation in the Court: reluctance about the cooperation of the forensic unities and HR-disputes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. To prepare this paper the academic teachings of Russian and foreign specialists in international law and especially international criminal law, international and domestic legal instruments, media publications, reports and statistics of the ICC official web page were used. This study is premised on using the general methods of cognition (systemic and structural approaches, analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction) and methods of legal research (comparative, historical and formallydogmatic methods).

RESEARCH RESULTS. Exaggerated expectations, organizational shortcomings, external explicit backlash, system obstacles of the international justice, pressure of officials and overt nihilism of the academics – that is where the Court have no choice but to work. Russian skepticism coupled with political observations provoked Russia’s 2016 withdrawal of its signature from the Rome Statute.The paper deals with Russian motives and reasons of the abovementioned decision. The analysis is carried out within the general pattern of the functioning of the Courts and its drawbacks. The stance of the main stakeholders is also considered. The authors conclude that the main reason of the Court’s default is predetermined considerably by the systematic and objective factors not dependent on the Hague court. At the same time some of the problems are deemed to be typical for international justice per se.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The bashing as regards the Court and its results excludes the impartiality in assessing ICC’s results and impedes the correct reasoning and offering adequate recommendations. The general negative narrative backs sufficient background for taking solely politically motivated decisions what the Russian experience proves. 

1. Bassiouni M. Сh. Perspectives on International Criminal Justice. – Virginia Journal of International Law. 2010. Vol. 50. Issue 2. P. 270–317.

2. Cassesse A. Cassesse’s International Criminal Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013. 399 p.

3. Ignatenko G.V. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo: predmet regulirovaniya kak kompleksnaya konstruktsiya v ramkakh sistemnogo issledovaniya [International law: subject of regulation as a complex construction within framework of system research]. – Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. 2011. No. 1. P. 38–46. (In Russ.)

4. Ignatenko G.V., Marochkin S.Yu. Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda Rossii ot 10 oktyabrya 2003 g. i mezhdunarodno-pravovye realii [Ruling of the Supreme Court dated October 10, 2003 and International Law Realities]. – Byulleten' Ministerstva yustitsii Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2003. No. 4. P. 26–31. (In Russ.)

5. Kambale P.K. A story of missed opportunities. The role of the International Criminal Court in the Democratic Republic of Congo. – Contested Justice. The Politics and Practice of International Criminal Court Interventions. Ed. by Chr. De Vos, S. Kendall, C. Stahn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2015. P. 171–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139924528.010

6. Kirsch Ph. Q.C. The International Criminal Court: Current Issues and Perspectives. – Law and Contemporary Problems. 2001. Vol. 64. No. 1. P. 3–12.

7. Lazutin L.A. Pravovaya pomoshch' po ugolovnym delam kak mezhotraslevoy normativnyy kompleks [Legal Assistance on Criminal Cases as International Normative Pattern]. Ekaterinburg: Izdatel'stvo UrGYuU Publ. 2008. 404 p. (In Russ.)

8. Medvedev D.A. 25 let Konstitutsii: balans mezhdu svobodoy i otvetstvennost'yu [The 25th Anniversary of the Constitution: balancing freedom and responsibility]. – Zakon. 2018. No. 12. P. 8–16. (In Russ.)

9. Mezhdunarodnyy ugolovnyy sud: problemy, diskussii, poisk resheniy. Pod red. G.I. Bogusha, E.N. Trikoz [ICC: Problems, Disputes, Settlement. Ed. by G.I. Bogush, E.N. Trikoz]. Moscow: Evropeiskaya Komissiya Publ. 2008. 792 p. (In Russ.)

10. Oppenheim L. International Law. Vol. 1: Peace. Part 1. (Russ. ed.: Oppenheim L. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. T. 1. Polutom 1. M.: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo inostrannoy literatury Publ. 1948. 460 p.).

11. Osminin B.I. Konstitutsionnye printsipy i vzaimodeystvie mezhdunarodnogo i vnutrigosudarstvennogo prava [Constitutional Principles and Interaction of International and Domestic Law]. – Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2014. No.5. P. 12–30. (In Russ.)

12. Sievert R. A New Perspective on the International Criminal Court: Why the Right Should Embrace the ICC and How America Can Use It. – University of Pittsburgh Law Review. 2006. Vol. 68. P. 77–129. DOI: 10.5195/lawreview.2006.92

13. Skuratova A.Yu. Rossiya i Rimskiy statut Mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo suda [Russia and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016. No. 4. P. 125–137. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24833/0869-0049-2016-4-125-137

14. Stahn C. A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2019. 448 p.

15. Werle G. Principles of International Criminal Law. (Russ. ed.: Werle G. Printsipy mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo prava. Moscow: Translit Publ. 2011. 910 p.)