EN 
NL 
When Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite the arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, was able to visit Mongolia on 3 September, the reactions of the Western world were furious. The United States called on Mongolia to keep supporting international law at all times, while the European Union strongly disapproved of Mongolia's behaviour and expressed its undivided support for the ICC.
This reaction is not very surprising. Mongolia has been a member of the Court since 2000 and is obliged under the Rome Statute to arrest fugitives from the Court who enter its territory. Legally, therefore, it should have refused Putin entrance to their country or arrested him, just like South Africa did earlier this year when the Russian president was not welcome at a BRICS summit they organized. Mongolia's behavior is even more remarkable in view of a statement that they recently supported, which unequivocally endorsed the independence and integrity of the ICC. All this seems to suggest that Mongolia supports international law only when it suits their interests, but not when it discredits one of their major trading partners.
Double standards
This is obviously a bad thing, but the United States and many EU countries are not blameless themselves. In May of this year, when Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the ICC, issued an arrest warrant for Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, this evoked a lot of criticism. Although some European countries such as Belgium, Spain and France supported the decision, the United States and many European countries strongly criticized it. Germany, for example, accused Khan of putting Netanyahu on an equal footing with Hamas, while President Biden of the United States called the arrest warrant "outrageous". A bill has even been passed in the United States to impose sanctions on the Criminal Court.
Thus, while these countries criticize Mongolia, they themselves do not even fully respect the authority of the ICC. This shows that many Western countries want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to accuse other countries of crimes by using international law, while they discredit the Court when other countries are using it against them. In this way, international law becomes a political game, where it is more important to have strong allies than whether you have actually done anything wrong.
Justice for all
This is not the first time the ICC and international law have been the topic of scandal. In 2016, South Africa seriously considered giving up their membership of the Criminal Court, because in their view it focused almost exclusively on criminals from the African continent. This would make the Criminal Court a kind of neo-colonial institution through which the West imposes its laws on African countries. Amnesty International joined this criticism, stressing that up to that time, almost all persecuted people came from Africa, while most offenders from Europe or the US were never actually convicted. This obviously undermines confidence in international law, or at least the application of it.
Fortunately, South Africa did not leave the Court and is now taking the initiative on international law itself. In December 2023, for example, it sued Israel for genocide in the Gaza Strip. In addition, Nicaragua has already followed in this by suing Germany for their assistance in Israel's alleged genocide. in their alleged genocide. Leaving aside whether these charges are justified or not, this is an important development for international law. It signals that the law applies to the West as well as the rest of the world, allowing countries like South Africa and Nicaragua to participate fully. Countries like Israel and Germany may not like this, yet it is better for everyone in the long run. International law thus gains credibility.
No one is above the law
Of course, this does not alter the fact that an institution like the ICC cannot facilitate arrests and remains dependent on member states to comply with arrest warrants. Moreover, not all countries have signed the Rome Statute either, which obliges them to extradite convicted criminals to the ICC. For this reason, some offenders still go free, but this is no reason to criticize the ICC itself. Instead, we should hold member states and countries that are not yet members accountable for their behavior.
Thus, while Mongolia certainly deserves criticism, so do countries like Germany and the United States. These are powerful countries that constantly shield their allies from persecution and think that they themselves are above the law. This is, of course, hugely unfair. The purpose of international law is precisely that vulnerable individuals and territories can defend themselves against a stronger or larger group. That is also the beauty of the ICC. Without such organizations the right of the strongest prevails and countries like Russia can do as they please. We must prevent this at all costs to make sure that not only the people of the most powerful countries can live in safety.
We need to look at ourselves first
If the ICC functions properly, impunity will be decreased and anyone on earth can be arrested for their crimes. This not only has a deterring effect, but also makes it possible for victims to get justice. Putin's reception in Mongolia indicates that this is not currently the case. However, this does not mean that it is enough to merely criticize Mongolia. We also have to look at ourselves. When even the countries that say they support the ICC the most start questioning its decisions, something is going very wrong. This shows that they care more about their political alliances than about international law. So why, then, would Mongolia invoke the anger of their much more powerful neighbor by arresting Putin? Only when no one is above the law can everyone be protected by international law. The ICC plays a crucial role here that should not be taken lightly.
Rights should not only be applied when they are convenient, but precisely when it is extremely hard to do so. At such moments, countries that support international law should stand behind the ICC more than ever, without giving in to pressure from their allies. Mongolia, Germany and the United States have unfortunately failed to do so, but there is hope. If all countries would follow South Africa's example, the support for the ICC and international law can be increased and maintained.
