Rare success: at the International Criminal Court and Duterte Arbitration

The arrest of the former President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte because of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a rare success in the attempts of the ICC to achieve high -ranking political figures, especially those who hold a public office or are still responsible for their crimes. However, it must be recognized that only a number of favorable circumstances were led to the arrest of Mr. Duterte and his Haagus-Hague, which was flown to Haag. The arrest warrant was executed by the government under the direction of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., and the decision could be made by the failure of his difference with Vice-Present Sara, Mr. Dutedted, Mr. Duted, Mr. Dutede's daughter, which was in the weakness-weakness-weakness-weakness-weakness-weakness-weakness-weak daughter. ICC applies without exception, unless the national governments cooperate with the ICC, a feature that often delays and affects most ICC criminal proceeding measures. Mr. Duterte was accused of “crime against the humanity of murder”. The reference to his “war against drugs”, a campaign of the state -supported murder when he was the mayor of Davao City and later president. The ICC examines the situation between 2011 and 2019 when he officially got his country out of ICC membership. However, the pre-trial chamber has determined that the country, although it is not now a state party, is responsible for trying crimes during the time when the Philippines were a party.

The ICC was created by the Rome statute in response to the need for a constant court instead of ad hoc tribunals for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It has no assertiveness and depends on the national interests of the great powers. It was often accused of concentrating on Africa and mainly against warlords and leaders in conflict zones. Arrest warrants such as Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu are rarely carried out. In addition, some member states have expressed the inability to carry out arrest warrants when these people visit their countries while some leaders avoid visiting countries of state parties. Added to this is the open hostility of the United States, which often threatens the ICC with punitive measures when it moves against its national or allies. Fortunately, the ICC still exists as an international judicial institution, mainly because it only tries individuals and not from states. It has also made some significant judgments for his own jurisdiction, the most important thing was the decision in relation to Palestine that it can order investigations to crime that is committed by nationals both of the state parties and the non -state on the territory of a state game. A mere rejection of a country to ratify the Rome Act or not to be a party may not be relevant to the ICC's decision to examine and pursue a person.