President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia instructed his government on Wednesday to withdraw from the treaty that created the International Criminal Court, while his government assailed the tribunal as “ineffective and one-sided.”
The action was largely symbolic because Russia - like the United States - has not ratified the treaty and is not under the court’s jurisdiction. But it was another setback for the fairly young court, which handles cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity and is an emblem of the international order that is being shaken by populist revolts across the West.
“Essentially, this is just a gratuitous slap in the face, not a body blow,” said Kate Cronin-Furman, a human rights lawyer and political scientist at the Harvard Kennedy School, who predicted that the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States would lead to more harm for the court.
Burundi, Gambia and South Africa moved recently to withdraw from the court, calling it biased because all the people it had convicted so far had been Africans or because, in the case of South Africa, it disagreed with the court’s mandate to prosecute any individual, including a head of state.
Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, tried on Wednesday to rally support for the court. “A new trend of isolationist and unprincipled leadership is building up across the world,” he said in an address to the General Assembly of the court’s member countries in The Hague. “Renewed attacks on the court may well be in the offing.”
Mr. al-Hussein has sharply criticised the divisive and racist rhetoric of several European right-wing politicians. Last month, he said that Mr. Trump would “without any doubt” be a threat to global stability if the president-elect stood by his campaign pledges to bar Muslims from entering the United States, to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and to endorse the use of torture.
“In a world that seems increasingly adrift, the turmoil yet to face humanity may be far greater than any challenge we have yet experienced,” Mr. al-Hussein said on Wednesday. “We face a choice. We can safeguard our societies by standing firm on the principles of justice which anchor this institution. Or we can cast away the moorings of law laid down to save the world from the horror.”
In announcing Russia’s withdrawal from the treaty, the Russian Foreign Ministry said the court had failed to live up to expectations that it would serve as an impartial and authoritative arbiter of international law.
This week, the court’s top prosecutor called Russia’s annexation of Crimea an “ongoing state of occupation,” a judgment affirmed by a United Nations human rights committee, which reiterated the world body’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty over the Black Sea peninsula.
The ministry cited the court’s approach toward Russia’s brief war with Georgia in 2008. The court has said it would investigate possible war crimes in Georgia - which is a member of the court - by all parties, including Russian armed forces.
An even sharper rebuke to the Russian government came on Monday, when the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said in a report that “the situation within the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol factually amounts to an ongoing state of occupation.”
Russia has insisted that its capture of Crimea was warranted by the legitimate popular vote of the Crimean people in a referendum.
The prosecutor’s report also said that the information available points to Russia’s direct military involvement in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, something that the Russian authorities have denied repeatedly.
“The Russian Federation deployed members of its armed forces to gain control over parts of the Ukrainian territory without the consent of the Ukrainian government,” the report said.
Russia might also be concerned about calls by Western officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, to have the court look into the bombing campaign in Syria.
The court is the world’s first international tribunal with permanent jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. It was founded in 1998 when 120 countries adopted the Rome Statute and began operations in 2002. The court has headquarters in The Hague.
Mr. Putin directed Russia to sign the Rome Statute in 2000, but Parliament did not ratify it. The United States never ratified the Rome Statute, though the Obama administration has cooperated with the court’s proceedings.
Ms. Bensouda, the chief prosecutor, said this week that she was considering an investigation into allegations of war crimes, torture and related treatment by American military forces and intelligence agencies in Afghanistan, raising the prospect of a confrontation with the Trump administration.
“Given that the I.C.C. is a relatively young institution, and the norms surrounding it are not firmly entrenched, the loss of American leadership on accountability for mass atrocities could be profoundly damaging,” said Ms. Cronin-Furman, the human rights lawyer.
Vladimir Frolov, a scholar of international relations, called Russia’s move a “symbolic gesture” prompted by Ms. Bensouda’s report on Crimea.
“At the time when Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000, it wanted to be a part of the modern world,” he said. “Now it doesn’t.” He added that he believed that many of Russia’s actions in Syria could “potentially be subject to an investigation by this court.”
The action was largely symbolic because Russia - like the United States - has not ratified the treaty and is not under the court’s jurisdiction. But it was another setback for the fairly young court, which handles cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity and is an emblem of the international order that is being shaken by populist revolts across the West.
“Essentially, this is just a gratuitous slap in the face, not a body blow,” said Kate Cronin-Furman, a human rights lawyer and political scientist at the Harvard Kennedy School, who predicted that the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States would lead to more harm for the court.
Burundi, Gambia and South Africa moved recently to withdraw from the court, calling it biased because all the people it had convicted so far had been Africans or because, in the case of South Africa, it disagreed with the court’s mandate to prosecute any individual, including a head of state.
Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, tried on Wednesday to rally support for the court. “A new trend of isolationist and unprincipled leadership is building up across the world,” he said in an address to the General Assembly of the court’s member countries in The Hague. “Renewed attacks on the court may well be in the offing.”
Mr. al-Hussein has sharply criticised the divisive and racist rhetoric of several European right-wing politicians. Last month, he said that Mr. Trump would “without any doubt” be a threat to global stability if the president-elect stood by his campaign pledges to bar Muslims from entering the United States, to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and to endorse the use of torture.
“In a world that seems increasingly adrift, the turmoil yet to face humanity may be far greater than any challenge we have yet experienced,” Mr. al-Hussein said on Wednesday. “We face a choice. We can safeguard our societies by standing firm on the principles of justice which anchor this institution. Or we can cast away the moorings of law laid down to save the world from the horror.”
In announcing Russia’s withdrawal from the treaty, the Russian Foreign Ministry said the court had failed to live up to expectations that it would serve as an impartial and authoritative arbiter of international law.
This week, the court’s top prosecutor called Russia’s annexation of Crimea an “ongoing state of occupation,” a judgment affirmed by a United Nations human rights committee, which reiterated the world body’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty over the Black Sea peninsula.
The ministry cited the court’s approach toward Russia’s brief war with Georgia in 2008. The court has said it would investigate possible war crimes in Georgia - which is a member of the court - by all parties, including Russian armed forces.
An even sharper rebuke to the Russian government came on Monday, when the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said in a report that “the situation within the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol factually amounts to an ongoing state of occupation.”
Russia has insisted that its capture of Crimea was warranted by the legitimate popular vote of the Crimean people in a referendum.
The prosecutor’s report also said that the information available points to Russia’s direct military involvement in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, something that the Russian authorities have denied repeatedly.
“The Russian Federation deployed members of its armed forces to gain control over parts of the Ukrainian territory without the consent of the Ukrainian government,” the report said.
Russia might also be concerned about calls by Western officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, to have the court look into the bombing campaign in Syria.
The court is the world’s first international tribunal with permanent jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. It was founded in 1998 when 120 countries adopted the Rome Statute and began operations in 2002. The court has headquarters in The Hague.
Mr. Putin directed Russia to sign the Rome Statute in 2000, but Parliament did not ratify it. The United States never ratified the Rome Statute, though the Obama administration has cooperated with the court’s proceedings.
Ms. Bensouda, the chief prosecutor, said this week that she was considering an investigation into allegations of war crimes, torture and related treatment by American military forces and intelligence agencies in Afghanistan, raising the prospect of a confrontation with the Trump administration.
“Given that the I.C.C. is a relatively young institution, and the norms surrounding it are not firmly entrenched, the loss of American leadership on accountability for mass atrocities could be profoundly damaging,” said Ms. Cronin-Furman, the human rights lawyer.
Vladimir Frolov, a scholar of international relations, called Russia’s move a “symbolic gesture” prompted by Ms. Bensouda’s report on Crimea.
“At the time when Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000, it wanted to be a part of the modern world,” he said. “Now it doesn’t.” He added that he believed that many of Russia’s actions in Syria could “potentially be subject to an investigation by this court.”