The arrest of Duterte shows power and limits of the International Criminal Court

The police in the Philippines arrested Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the country on Tuesday, for crimes against humanity under an arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court.

During his time in office, Mr. Duttert encouraged the police to hunt and kill people who suspect them to be involved in illegal drug trafficking. Human rights groups say that more than 30,000 people were killed in extrajudicial executions.

The arrest represents a significant victory for the ICC, an independent judicial authority that examines people and tries to accuse the genocide, war crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression in the Hague.

But Mr. Duterte’s arrest also shows the borders of the court: Although his responsibility is recovered, the court cannot arrest. It is based on the cooperation between the national governments to carry out their arrest warrants, which has delivered the mercy of domestic politics.

It was possible to arrest Mr. Duterte because he was out of office and was politically weakened. In contrast, there seems to be no chance that ICC detention for President Vladimir V. Putin from Russia or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from Israel is carried out at any time.

On paper, the ICC can order the arrest of people who have supposedly committed a crime who is listed in the Rome statute, the 1998 contract that the court has set up and who is either a citizen of an ICC member state or committed the crime on the territory one. Even leaders are not immune to law enforcement – a remarkable departure from the usual rules of international law. (Lord Duterte withdrew from the court during his presidency, but a jury from ICC judge found that the court is still responsible because its alleged crimes took place before this retreat.)

In practice, however, the court has little or no ability to pursue a seated guide or humans under their protection.

Mr. Duterte may have expected him to be protected from his successor Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who initially promised to protect him from international investigation. But then Mr. Dute’s family – especially his daughter Sara Duterte, the vice president is – had a dramatic failure with Mr. Marcos (Ms. Duterte said that she wanted to cut down Mr. Marcos’ head and threatened to dig his dead father’s body and throw it in the ocean).

Since the relationship deteriorated, the protection of Mr. Duterte was also against the International Court. Mr. Marcos allowed ICC investigators to the country.

Experts say that these narrow circumstances for the ICC have created a way to act.

“We cannot expect a new institution to counteract the operation of power or the real firm interests of powerful actors,” said Kate Cronin-Furman, professor at the University College London, who examines the accountability for mass-graves. “But we hope that you will adapt things to the edge and over time change things towards a just world.”

“In the absence of the ICC, Duterte probably lives his life happy, which is responsible for the massacre of thousands,” she added.

Most of the outstanding ICC detention commands did not go in the same way. Many of the best -known arrest warrants of the court have not led to arrests, including the cases of Mr. Putin and Mr. Netanyahu.

For political leaders who are targeted by the ICC, the power of their offices can often be sufficient to protect them from arrest. But with Mr. Duterte as a remarkable example, this dynamic creates an additional incentive for you to stay in office as long as possible.

Thank you for being a subscriber

Read earlier editions of the newsletter here.

If you enjoy what you read, you should recommend it to others. You can register here. Browse all of our only subscribers newsletters here.

I would love your feedback on this newsletter. Please send an e -mail to thoughts and suggestions to [email protected]. You can also follow me on Twitter.