Manila: The International Criminal Court (ICC) is once again in the global spotlight as it continues investigating former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's controversial war on drugs. The probe raises critical questions about international justice, state sovereignty, and whether global institutions can truly hold powerful political figures accountable.
According to Philippines News Agency, Michael Tiu, Jr., assistant professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law, shared insights into the ICC's mandate, how it prosecutes former heads of state, and what this means for international human rights law.
The ICC was established under the Rome Statute to prosecute genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. It operates under a principle called complementarity - meaning it only intervenes when a country is either unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute cases on its own. In Duterte's case, the ICC's jurisdiction remains a point of debate. Tiu explained: 'The court determined that it still has jurisdiction because the matter had been under consideration before the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute took effect.' This means even though the country officially left the ICC in 2019, the case can still move forward.
Issuing an ICC arrest warrant is a multi-step legal process that requires cooperation from states. 'Since the ICC has no police force, it relies entirely on state cooperation,' Tiu pointed out. If a country refuses to arrest the accused, the trial cannot proceed, as the ICC does not allow trials in absentia.
The ICC faces significant challenges in prosecuting former leaders due to its reliance on member states' cooperation. 'The matter could be raised to the U.N. Security Council, but there would be minimal legal and diplomatic consequences unless obligations under Interpol cooperation come into play,' Tiu noted. This highlights the broader challenge of enforcing ICC rulings when political considerations outweigh legal obligations.
The ICC intervenes when it determines that a country isn't taking meaningful action to investigate and prosecute crimes itself, applying the "same person, same conduct" test. 'The court uses the same person, same conduct test,' Tiu explained. If domestic proceedings fall short, the ICC can justify stepping in.
Duterte's case could shape future international justice. If the ICC prosecutes Duterte, it sets a precedent that even leaders withdrawing their countries from the Rome Statute can still be held accountable. 'It signals that the international criminal justice project could work,' Tiu said, reinforcing that accountability is possible if states cooperate.
The ICC relies on international cooperation for arresting suspects and providing evidence. 'International power can be used both to pressure states into cooperating with the ICC and to prevent them from surrendering accused individuals,' Tiu said. Political maneuvering, such as non-surrender agreements, complicates the court's work.
Duterte's case presents a politically sensitive situation. An arrest warrant and government non-compliance could strain international relations and fuel domestic tensions. 'It is a delicate relationship,' Tiu acknowledged. The outcome will shape the ICC's credibility, reinforcing the idea that no one is above international law if the court succeeds in holding Duterte accountable.
