Afrasianet - The Atlantic West does not stop pursuing Russia with sanctions and focusing on the ongoing media attack on Russia, but the latest announcement by the European Union that it is in the process of establishing a special court to try Russian leaders and public figures confirms that international law is in jeopardy.
As in the American case, rules come as an alternative to international law, rules established by the Atlantic West to serve its interests and goals.
What about international tribunals, whose rulings that do not conform to Western policy have become ridiculous? Has selectivity in accepting these rulings become an act that is enshrined according to interests and whims?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signs an agreement with the Council of Europe on human rights , democracy and the rule of law to establish a special court to try senior officials for allegedly committing the crime of aggression against his country.
The mission of the court, which Kiev and its Western allies announced on May 9 in the Ukrainian city of Lviv, is to look into what they call the "crime of aggression", a clear manipulation of recognized international laws where Europeans say that the "crime of aggression" is outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
In an apparent ecstasy, Zelensky said: "We still have a long way to go. Today's agreement is only the beginning, and we must take real steps for it to succeed. It will take close political and legal cooperation to make sure that every Russian war criminal faces justice, including President Vladimir Putin."
The 46-member Council of Europe, established in the aftermath of World War II to uphold human rights and the rule of law , claims that the court was intended to complement the ICC and fill legal loopholes in prosecutions.
Kremlin responds to EU plans to form 'court' against Russia
Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, commenting on the EU's plans to form a "court" against Russia, says Moscow will not react to this.
In this way, the Kremlin representative responded to a question from journalists about Moscow's reaction to the plans of a number of EU countries to establish a "court" to try Russia in connection with the events in Ukraine.
Asked about the Russian leadership's reaction to the news, Peskov was quoted by TASS news agency as saying: "We do not respond to such news."
Russia's Foreign Ministry and Federation Council have previously stressed that the competence of these bodies, which Ukraine and its Western patrons are trying to form, cannot include Russia.
ICC prosecutor: Russian president's "arrest" warrant is unfortunate
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, says that the "arrest warrant" issued by the court is "regrettable" and "does not invite celebration."
In an interview with CNN, he added: "This should not give us reason to celebrate. We are doing so. The evidence made us behave that way."
Earlier, Russia's permanent representative to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, told a meeting of the UN Security Council that Russia considered any ICC documents null and void.
"This biased, politicized and incompetent international tribunal has once again proved its inferiority, a puppet in the hands of the collective West, which is always ready to deliver false justice on demand," he said.
It is ironic that legally invalid decisions are made public on the eve of the twentieth anniversary of the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, where the ICC has jurisdiction but has done nothing to bring those responsible to justice. The head of the Russian State Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, described the International Criminal Court's decision to issue an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin as hysterical for the West.
Volodin said: "The Yankees (nickname of the Americans), hands off Putin! The nonsense that came out of The Hague says one thing: the West is hysterical, and the bizarre Hague court papers don't apply to Russia."
International and Special Tribunals: Russia in the Dock
Numerous ICC or international justice rulings related to the war in Ukraine have affected even President Putin. However, the establishment of a special court was signed this week. What is the need for an updated judicial institution?
Since Russia's special military operation in Ukraine three years ago, international criminal prosecution has taken a new turn, establishing special courts to prosecute alleged perpetrators of this war , which is a violation of international law.
Some competent bodies at the national level - for example, in Germany, France, Spain and Lithuania - conduct investigations on the basis of the principle of universal jurisdiction against Russian actors for alleged war crimes. The principle of universal jurisdiction is a principle of international law and allows States to prosecute particularly serious crimes, even if the perpetrator, victim or crime scene is not in those States.
Trials in absentia only
The newly created Special Court is due to begin its work in the coming months; judges and prosecutors must first be appointed. However, it is highly unlikely that it will be able to hold defendants like Vladimir Putin personally accountable. It is impossible, at least as long as the latter is president, because heads of state and government enjoy legal immunity during their time in office. Moreover, Russia does not recognize international tribunals and is highly unlikely to extradite. This means that the trials will most likely be in absentia.
This action can only be explained by one interpretation, which is non-compliance with international laws, but rather their abolition, and this did not stop at the trial of Russia, but selectivity will prevail in any rulings issued by this court in accordance with Western interests, which sometimes accept rulings issued by the International Criminal Court and sometimes reject rulings issued by the same court, as is the case in accepting sentences against Russian figures, while refusing to accept sentences against Israeli leaders who practice genocide and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. As also confirmed by international courts.
Double standards. Does the ICC only target Africa and vulnerable states?
If the International Criminal Court is dominated by the Atlantic West, why is there a need for special courts for this West?
Western interference in the work of international courts has made them lose their sincerity and they have challenges and accusations of selectivity facing the work of the International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court was established with the noble aim of prosecuting those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, but it has faced criticism since its inception for its focus on leaders of the global South, particularly Africa.
While ignoring the crimes committed by Western countries, questions have been raised about whether the court is an instrument of global justice, or a means of political intervention and only Western influence.
Targeting Africa
Since its establishment was announced in 2002, the International Criminal Court has conducted high-profile investigations and trials, the most famous of which were against figures and leaders from African countries, such as former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, Congolese President Thomas Lubanga, and former Ivorian leader Laurent Gbaabou.
While the court is prosecuting African figures for all their wrongdoings, it ignores many leaders of Western countries that have committed similar or more serious acts in large areas of the world.
This apparent bias and double standards have reinforced accusations that the Court has become a neo-colonial instrument aimed at strengthening Western hegemony over African states, rather than establishing justice and impartial verdicts for all without discrimination or selectivity.
In light of the double standards pursued by this institution, some countries, such as South Africa and Burundi, threatened to withdraw from it, which the African Union demanded in 2017, as it considered that African countries should withdraw en masse from the court, and considered it to be unjustly pursuing African leaders, and ignoring Western political and military figures.
Ignoring the crimes of the West
With increasing talk of the ICC ignoring Western crimes in Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, the court decided in 2022 to conduct an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan, but backed down after pressure and threats of sanctions against its officials by Washington.
This retreat has reinforced the perception that the Court is weak to powerful States and cannot confront it as it does with African States.
The court has done nothing about the abuses of European states in Libya and the Sahel region, where they have been working to fight terrorism, and have reportedly participated in crimes against humanity.
The ICC ignored the involvement of US forces in systematic killings, torture crimes in Iraq, and extrajudicial killings.
With regard to the Israeli occupation war on Gaza, the Court did not announce a large list of charges and its conduct was substandard.
At stake :
Due to the double standards that it has been following since its founding, the credibility of the Court is at stake, especially after the growing demands in African countries for the need to withdraw from it.
The history of the court classifies it as an instrument of Western influence and a new colonial instrument, so could the European Special Court be better off?
When the ICC issued sentences against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his defense minister Gallant, Western countries imposed sanctions on the prosecutor of the court in addition to discrediting him and certainly did not abide by what was issued, while blessing a verdict against Russian President Vladimir Putin with allegations that have neither the first nor the last.
The West acts within rules that it determines according to its interests, and this means burying the laws of international justice and acting with a colonial mentality, but in a different way, where the law is subject to justifying its crimes and exempting its crimes from accountability. Isn't that really the law of the jungle?