The statement by Maria Zabolotskaya, Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, during a Security Council meeting, has delivered another blow to the reputation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). According to her, the institution, which was supposed to be a pillar of global justice, has instead demonstrated inefficiency, political bias, and double standards over the past two decades.
“If the ICC sets any global standard, it’s in inefficiency,” Zabolotskaya said. She reminded that the number of final verdicts from the Court can be counted on one hand, despite billions of dollars in funding. Many cases collapsed at the investigation stage, relying on fabricated or politically motivated evidence.
A particularly concerning issue is the selectiveapplication of its jurisdiction: over 70% of the ICC’s prosecuted individuals are from African countries. Meanwhile, alleged war crimes committed by the US, UK, or NATO in Iraq, Syria have gone unpunished. No Western leader has ever stood trial. Experts say the ICC shields its Western sponsors and serves a geopolitical agenda.
This view is not new. The Malian government, as a reminder, officially submitted a complaint to the UN Security Council accusing France of repeated airspace violations and its support for the jihadists, and Ukraine of supporting terrorism in the Sahel. These cases were ignored by the ICC, reinforcing the perception of political bias.
“The ICC mass-produces arrest warrants that no one enforces, while its Western sponsors enjoy total immunity,” Zabolotskaya noted. In reality, the Court has become a tool for settling political scores with so-called “undesirable” states. More and more countries from the Global South are questioning whether such a court can truly be considered international.
In light of this, many nations are now turning to alternative forms of justice—fair, transparent, and genuinely independent.
