According to the World Wide Web news, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger jointly announced their immediate withdrawal from the The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. They put it quite bluntly in the joint statement: The three countries joined the Statute successively between 2000 and 2004 and had been working with the International Criminal Court (ICC), but over the years, they felt that the ICC had completely changed its taste and became a “imperialist neo-colonialism tool” dedicated to “selective justice”.
To put it bluntly, I just feel that this court has long been unfair, and whoever has the power will favor whoever has the power, completely losing its neutrality.
In fact, China’s attitude toward the ICC has always been clear: First, the Court must be fair and transparent, without double standards; secondly, it should act in accordance with the mandate of the UN Security Council, and not in obedience to a major power.
But what is the reality?The Security Council rarely authorizes the ICC to do things, but countries like the United States often draw their fingers behind their backs and use the ICC as a gun.
The most typical example is the former president of the Philippines, Duterte, who was banned from drugs at the time and is now being arrested by the people of his own country to be sent to the Hague in the Netherlands for trial. Everyone can see that this is basically the current President Marcos to suppress political enemies with the help of the ICC, and there are foreign powers behind it.
Duterte is now 80 years old, his health is getting worse and worse, and lawyers say he has “cognitive impairment” and can’t be tried properly at all, calling on the ICC to postpone the trial indefinitely.
According to the news agency, the ICC, which postponed the trial in order to defend its face, not only did not stop, The prosecutor also formally filed three charges of crimes against humanity, saying his drug-fight involves at least 76 murders, and apparently did not intend to let Duterte go.
Not to mention, the Philippines has long announced its withdrawal.How can ICC’s operations now be explained in addition to the perception that the ICC is aligned with the political scenarios of certain countries? What is the meaning of an international judiciary, if it cannot do even the basic neutrality and justice, then it exists?
The collective withdrawal of the three countries is not an impulse, but a direct response to ICC's long-term partiality for hegemony and loss of credibility. If the ICC continues like this, I'm afraid more countries will vote with their feet.