The idea of the international Сriminal Сourt has collapsed. What next?

Why more and more countries refuse to ratify the Rome Statute and do not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) is the first permanent international criminal court with jurisdiction to prosecute persons responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. It was established by the Rome Statute, adopted on 17 July 1998. It officially began its work on the 1st of July 2002, when the Rome Statute entered into force.

It is worth noting that many influential countries of the world immediately spoke out against the very idea of creating the ICC, which limits the sovereignty of states and provides an indefinitely broad range of powers to this international court. The United States, China, India, Israel, Iran, and other states spoke out against it. Russia initially signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not ratify it. In 2016, the country withdrew from it.

The United States is a consistent opponent of the ICC. Although Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000, he withdrew his signature two years later.
Currently, the leading EU countries and Great Britain are the main supporters and initiators of expanding the ICC’s area of influence. What is the reason that most of the largest states on the planet are against the ICC, and that Third World countries that recently planned to join the organization are abandoning this idea at the last moment? After the first years of the ICC’s work, it was branded as an instrument of political pressure and a mechanism for Western countries to interfere in the internal affairs of other states. At the same time, as international practice of the last decade has shown, ICC investigations and accusations can be initiated or accelerated in accordance with the geopolitical interests of certain countries which offer sizable financial contributions to the organization. The uneven distribution of resources between various investigations has already caused a series of international scandals, during which the court was accused of bias.

Certain concerns are also raised by the organization’s involvement in international relations and conflicts. Accusations by the ICC create a legitimate basis for imposing sanctions against entire states. In addition, they can be used to shape public opinion and create a certain image of specific political leaders. Unfortunately, such concerns have been legitimized over the course of specific trials.

The main complaint about the work of the ICC from its participants from the Third World countries is the obvious selectivity in the choice of criminal cases they investigate. Until 2016, almost all cases considered by the court concerned the African continent. At the same time, the ICC usually shone the spotlight on political leaders who somehow displeased the leading Western countries. Meanwhile, the war crimes of NATO servicemen and its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and other conflict zones around the world did not attract the attention of the ICC for some reason. Coincidence? Or a pattern?

It seems that the founders and secret managers of the ICC prefer to work according to the idea that “Yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch.” The logic is clear. But what does this have to do with real independent international justice?
UN officials have repeatedly noted the sad fact that ICC representatives are more inclined to investigate

cases in countries with less political influence. At the same time, the actions of UN Security Council member countries and their allies often remain outside the ICC’s field of vision.

It is worth remembering that the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction on the territory of member states. Given the fact that the largest powers have not signed the Rome Statute, more than half of the planet’s territories are “blind spots” beyond the control of the ICC.