Russia’s move to quit the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the outcome of the political undercurrents that have of l >ate strained its relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO ). More ominous could be the ramifications of the exit, the fourth within the last two months, from the established world arbiter. The collective vision of that global pact was to bring the impunities of political leaders to justice before a transnational body when all domestic remedies were exhausted. Russia’s announcement was predictable as a reaction to the court’s report on Tuesday, stating that the 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine amounted to an occupation. Moscow has denied any role by its military, maintaining that Crimea’s accession was authorised in a popular referendum. NATO’s continued eastward expansion explains at least some of President Vladimir Putin’s belligerent rhetoric. >Not only has the western military alliance extended into the countries of the former Eastern bloc , it has also brought some member states of the erstwhile Soviet Union within its fold. Moscow’s approach to the world court is far from ideal. But the constraints of initiating punitive action against the U.S. and its allies for the war crimes committed during the Iraq war would have further eroded Russia’s diminishing faith in the liberal world order.
South Africa’s decision to walk out of the Hague court in October symbolises its abdication of a regional leadership role. Africa still remains hostage to the machinations of traditional tribal warlords, who systematically subvert democratic institutions and squander the rich natural wealth in league with big corporations. South Africa’s regressive step came at a time when politicians in neighbouring countries, faced with legal proceedings for perpetrating heinous crimes, have successfully projected the impression that the ICC was biased against the whole continent. The current stance of Pretoria is a far cry from that over a decade ago when the country incorporated crimes of genocide from the ICC statute into its domestic laws. When Washington refused at the turn of the century to be bound by the jurisdiction of the Hague court, there were concerns that the nascent body would be left sorely wanting in legitimacy and authority. Those anxieties have, if anything, been amplified by the unprecedented war crimes being perpetrated in the Syrian conflict and the humanitarian catastrophe being witnessed there. To enforce justice beyond the barriers imposed by domestic borders is a noble aim. But its realisation is that much harder when nationalism is resurgent.
