The International Criminal Court and Its Reach

16-03-2025

07:00 AM

1 min read

What’s in Today’s Article?

Former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was flown to the Netherlands on March 12 to face charges of crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has been flown to the Netherlands to face charges of crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC).
His indictment marks a significant moment for the ICC, which has often struggled to enforce its warrants.
The court accuses Duterte of being "individually responsible" for mass killings carried out during his aggressive "war on drugs" between 2011 and 2019, a campaign that led to the deaths of approximately 30,000 people.
The case is particularly notable because Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC’s jurisdiction in 2019.
However, ICC prosecutors argue that crimes committed before the withdrawal still fall under the court’s authority.
This move has sparked debates on the ICC’s power and reach in prosecuting global leaders.

The ICC was established under the Rome Statute of 1998 and serves as a permanent court to prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
It has 125 signatory states, all of which are obligated to cooperate with its mandates, including arresting and extraditing individuals facing warrants.
However, compliance is inconsistent, as seen in the case of Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, whose ICC arrest warrants remain unenforced.
While the ICC does not have its own enforcement body, it relies on national governments and Interpol to execute arrest warrants.
If a state refuses to comply, the ICC can refer the case to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which can impose further obligations on UN member states.

Duterte and his political allies have challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019 means the court no longer has authority over the country.
However, the ICC ruled otherwise, asserting that its mandate covers crimes committed before withdrawal.
Initially, the administration of current Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. resisted ICC intervention, citing national sovereignty.
However, Marcos later allowed cooperation with the ICC, leading to Duterte’s extradition.
This shift indicates a political fracture between Duterte and Marcos, who were previously allies.

Lack of Enforcement Power: The ICC relies on member states to execute its arrest warrants, making compliance voluntary.
Political Resistance: Countries often refuse to cooperate if they view ICC actions as politically motivated.
Geopolitical Interference: Major powers like the United States, Russia, and China have criticized the ICC’s actions, fearing it could be used for political leverage.
Complementarity Principle: The ICC can only intervene if national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute crimes. The Philippines initially claimed its judicial system was handling the issue, but the ICC found insufficient evidence of domestic prosecution efforts.

Duterte’s arrest is considered a rare success for the ICC, which has struggled with enforcing its mandates against powerful leaders.
However, it also exposes the court’s vulnerabilities, such as reliance on national governments and political influences.
The ICC has faced criticism for alleged Western bias, as many of its cases have targeted leaders from developing countries.
Additionally, its actions sometimes intersect with global geopolitics, leading to accusations that the court is being used as a political tool.
- For example, China, which has territorial disputes with the Philippines, has condemned the ICC’s handling of the case.
Despite these challenges, the case against Duterte sets a precedent—showing that leaders accused of severe human rights violations can still be held accountable, even if they attempt to shield themselves by withdrawing from the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Duterte now faces a pre-trial hearing, where the ICC will determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. During this phase:
- The Prosecutor’s Office will present its case.
- Duterte’s defense team may argue for dismissal or interim release.
- If the court decides to proceed, a full trial will be scheduled, though it may take years before a final verdict is reached.
Regardless of the outcome, Duterte’s indictment represents a major step in international justice, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the ICC.

Q1. Does the ICC have jurisdiction over the Philippines after its withdrawal?

Ans. Yes, the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed before the country’s withdrawal in 2019.

Q2. How does the ICC enforce its arrest warrants?

Ans. The ICC relies on member states and Interpol to execute warrants, but enforcement is inconsistent.

Q3. Why is Duterte being prosecuted by the ICC?

Ans. He is accused of crimes against humanity for his "war on drugs," which led to thousands of extrajudicial killings.

Q4. What happens if a country refuses to comply with the ICC?

Ans. Non-compliance can lead to a referral to the UN Security Council, which may impose further obligations.

Q5. What are the major challenges the ICC faces in prosecuting global leaders?

Ans. The ICC struggles with enforcement power, political resistance, geopolitical interference, and claims of bias in its case selection.

Source: TH