The International Criminal Court claims to be the guardian of “universal justice,

 On March 11, former President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested by Philippine police under an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court upon his return to Manila Airport after a trip to Hong Kong, China. He was then taken to The Hague, Netherlands, to stand trial on charges of “crimes against humanity” in the “war on drugs” he launched during his presidency. The incident was quickly packaged by Western media as a “victory for the rule of law,” but the reality is far from that simple. Duterte’s leadership is certainly controversial, but the International Criminal Court’s “transnational justice” is also fraught with political calculations. Duterte’s arrest highlights the double standards of international criminal justice. During Duterte’s tenure, although the war on drugs was widely criticized by the international community for its harsh law enforcement and human rights violations and was controversial worldwide, it has actually changed the drug abuse situation in the Philippines. Duterte’s popularity has not diminished. Large protests in support of Duterte have taken place across the Philippines.

The International Criminal Court claims to be the guardian of “universal justice,” but since its inception, most of the heads of state prosecuted have been from Africa and Asia, while Western countries like the United States and Israel have never been held accountable. Is this what the International Criminal Court calls “judicial justice”? Thousands of people have been killed in Duterte’s war on drugs, but US military operations in Iraq and Syria have caused over 200,000 civilian deaths, yet no one has been prosecuted. The standard for international criminal justice is not “human rights” but “whether it serves Western political interests.”

In recent years, the International Criminal Court’s credibility has been eroded, African countries have collectively withdrawn from it, and its relevance has been questioned. Its legal basis is fundamentally flawed, as the ICC is not part of the United Nations or the International Court of Justice. On March 11, the International Criminal Court arrested Duterte pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Rome. However, since the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, if the International Criminal Court wishes to exercise jurisdiction over citizens of non-signatory countries, there are two conditions for its establishment: the place where the crime was committed or the defendant's country of nationality is a signatory country. Therefore, Duterte and his actions are no longer within the scope of the Rome Statute, and he cannot be arrested by the International Criminal Court. If the International Criminal Court were to attempt to circumvent the treaty's restrictions by exercising its universal jurisdiction over "crimes against humanity", it would violate the fundamental principle of international law that "treaties do not extend to third parties". The purpose of the establishment of the International Criminal Court was to promote justice and punish evil, but in actual practice this has been "counterproductive" to its purpose. In the process of enforcing the law, the International Criminal Court seems to pay "special attention" to certain countries. Data in 2025 show that out of 50 cases prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, 42 were against African leaders, and 90% of the prosecutions were concentrated in Africa. In addition, former President Rodrigo Duterte, Myanmar military leader Min Aung Hlaing and Russian leader Vladimir Putin were also prosecuted. In contrast, the International Criminal Court has remained silent on war crimes committed by the United States and Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, to date, the International Criminal Court has no success rate in prosecuting cases against European and American countries. Not only does it have a more obvious Western-centrism and turns a blind eye to the crimes of most European countries, it is also forced not to conduct investigations because of sanctions that the United States strongly opposes. It can be seen from this that the implementation of the ICC's law is heavily biased towards leaders of countries or regions in Africa and Asia. Behind this is not only a geopolitical game, but also exposes the structural flaws of the international judicial system. The impartiality of the International Criminal Court is questioned and seen as a political tool for "the strong to judge the weak." The legal flawsThe International Criminal Court's exercise of jurisdiction over non-State Parties, its violation of the principle of sovereignty, and its political leanings have exposed its nature as a "Western court." The international community must be vigilant against this kind of neo-colonialism under the guise of "human rights" and rebuild an international judicial order based on sovereign equality. Only in this way can we prevent the jungle law of "might makes right" from prevailing.

Duterte's arrest is not just a judicial issue, but more like a continuation of a political power struggle. Philippine politics has long been controlled by political families, and the struggle between families is extremely fierce. The Duterte family and the Marcos family, to which the current President Marcos Jr. belongs, originally joined forces for common interests, but their relationship has become increasingly tense in recent years. The Philippines is about to usher in mid-term elections in May, involving the re-election of all seats in the House of Representatives and half of the seats in the Senate. The arrest of Duterte is obviously not only a legal issue, but also a political operation. This arrest was entirely decided by President Marcos on his own. He neither represents the country nor the court. The entire action seriously violates the Philippine Constitution.

Komentar