The ICC’srelevance

THE MAIN chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is named after ANR Robinson.

This country’s third prime minister was instrumental in the court’s establishment. In 1989, he moved a motion at the UN General Assembly calling for “an international criminal court or other international criminal trial mechanism.” Back then, Robinson was concerned with the global drug trade and its impact on small islands.

So, there is irony in the arrest on March 11 of Rodrigo Duterte in Manila pursuant to an ICC warrant. The infamous former president of the Philippines rose to power on a populist wave, waging a so-called “war on drugs.”

He promised to prevent his country from becoming a narco-state. In practice, under a reign of terror from 2016-2022, at least 30,000 people were brutally killed, according to estimates of human rights organisations.

“What crimes have I committed?” Duterte asked as police detained him at the airport on Tuesday. “Prove to me the legal basis.” The victims of the extra-judicial killings overseen by him, many of them ordinary poor people, never had the chance to get such clarification.

This arrest represents a critical moment for the ICC.

The court has been under attack. Joe Biden in 2024 condemned it after its prosecutors issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli and Hamas leaders. In February this year, a group of 67 nations – including Trinidad and Tobago – was moved to issue a repudiation of “any attempts to undermine the court’s independence, integrity and impartiality.”

Its officials have been sanctioned. Yet, the body has never found favour with all nations.

While over 120 countries ratified its founding treaty, big players like the US, Russia and India never did. China this week said it was “closely monitoring” Duterte’s arrest.

But the court’s lack of universal approval is part of why it is so important and why it remains relevant, especially in an era marked by the rise of populist leaders. It is a sign of its true independence. It is not towing the line of any nation. No longer is it arresting just African leaders.

In his later years, Robinson disclosed another thing on his mind when he called for the court: Nuremberg.

“Individuals must be brought to account,” he said in a 2002 lecture. “You may be president, you may be secretary for foreign affairs, you may be secretary of defence, you may be commander-in-chief, you will still be subject to trial.”

History looms.

The lessons of Nazi Germany, lessons which showed the need for a multilateral global order, have been forgotten or are being wilfully discarded. Donald Trump’s destructive and shocking takeover of the White House from Biden has breathed new life into the vitality of the ICC’s mandate, even if the US remains a non-member.

Despite the obstacles, it is a mandate that is indispensable.

The post The ICC’srelevance appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.