At The Flashlight, we talk about news from the perspective of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) by the United Nations. While most discussions tend to focus on tangible goals like ending poverty or ensuring clean energy, it’s harder to see how abstract goals like peace, justice, and partnerships play out in the real world. SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions) and SDG 17 (global partnerships) are foundational to the success of all other goals, yet they often go unnoticed. So how do these goals impact our lives, and what do they look like on a global scale?
A concrete example can be found in the recent visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Mongolia in September 2024. Despite an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant accusing Putin of war crimes, he was not arrested when he traveled to Mongolia, a country that is bound by the ICC’s Rome Statute.
This incident, despite not being widely covered in mainstream media, raises serious questions about the efficacy of international justice mechanisms. This topic hits home especially for Filipinos, who also have had concerns with the ICC and their investigation of former President Rodrigo Duterte.
The ICC’s role in global justice
The ICC was established to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It ensures that perpetrators are held accountable for their crimes – even if they are the highest-ranking officials in their respective countries.
And yet, while the ICC has the mandate to “put an end to the impunity” of perpetrators, its enforcement powers are limited. This means that the court relies on member states to arrest and extradite suspects. Russia is not a member of the ICC, but Mongolia is, making the latter bound by the Rome Statute to cooperate with the court’s rulings. In the case of the Philippines, then-President Duterte formally notified the United Nations secretary-general that the Philippines was withdrawing from the ICC’s Rome Statute. However, the ICC judges stated that relevant “ensuing obligations remain applicable, notwithstanding the Philippine’s withdrawal from the Statute”.
Either way, the ICC is recognized as a leading global court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is empowered to bring peace and justice to the world – but how effective is it, really? The failure to arrest President Putin in Mongolia highlights the challenges the ICC faces in ensuring compliance, especially when powerful world leaders are involved.
Why won’t Mongolia arrest Vladimir Putin?
Mongolia was the first ICC member-state to host the Russian leader since the ICC issued a warrant for his arrest. As a signatory of the Rome Statute, it is obligated to honor ICC’s arrest warrants, but it is unlikely that it will (as proven by what happened last September).
It’s understandable: Mongolia’s geopolitical position places it in a delicate situation. It is strategically located between Russia and China, relying heavily on its neighbors for its economy and security. Arresting President Putin could have sparked severe diplomatic and economic consequences, which the country cannot afford. It’s worth noting that for 2024, Mongolia ranked 105 out of 145 countries in military strength. In the annual GFP review, the nation holds a Power Index score of 2.1079, where 0 is considered perfect.
This greatly explains their reluctance to arrest such a powerful individual. However, this pragmatic approach also comes with a cost. By choosing not to act, Mongolia has inadvertently sent a signal to the world that economic and political considerations can override international justice. This sets a dangerous precedent for global governance.
Going back to the Philippines, every Filipino heard our then-President proclaiming that he would never cooperate with the ICC, citing their claims as “bullshit” and one he will never abide by.
Regardless of how you think about the positions of Mongolia, the Philippines, and any other country scrutinized by the ICC, the question remains of what happens when leaders disregard global calls for justice.
The impact on SDG 16
SDG 16 promotes peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable institutions. President Putin’s non-arrest in Mongolia directly undermines this goal by:
- Eroding trust in the ICC and other international institutions: The ICC is meant to be an impartial body that ensures justice is served, regardless of political power. By not arresting President Putin, even for the most valid reasons, Mongolia has clearly shown that international rulings can be ignored, which may weaken trust in institutions designed to uphold the law.
- Impunity for crimes: This has a ripple effect on who is held accountable for war crimes. When high-profile figures like President Putin evade arrest, it emboldens others in positions of power to act without fear of consequences. This could lead to perpetuating cycles of violence.
- Weakening accountability: Ultimately, it weakens the legitimacy of not only the ICC but other international legal institutions.
The impact on SDG 17
SDG 17 focuses on strengthening global partnerships to support sustainable development, including enhancing cooperation between nations. This issue impacts SDG 17 by:
- Undermining multilateral cooperation: We must recall the purpose of the ICC and what it intends to promote. With many countries, Mongolia notwithstanding, refusing to act on international laws, we are seeing a trend of nations prioritizing political alliances over their legal obligations – which, ironically, can contribute to war crimes.
- Straining diplomatic relations: Mongolia’s decision to not comply with the ICC ruling may damage its diplomatic relations with countries that do support the court’s mandate. This may make it harder for the Mongolian government to build necessary partnerships to achieve broader development goals.
- Enabling fragmentation in global governance: It is incredibly dangerous when countries can pick and choose when to follow international laws. Global governance structures can become fragmented, reducing the ability of multilateral institutions to address collective challenges.
Broader implications for global justice
It is difficult to write this article without sounding prescriptivist, figuratively pointing to government leaders and saying “You should do this” or “You should do that”, especially as a private citizen. It is understandable why leaders do some of the things they do: They are, after all, constantly stuck between a rock and a hard place. This opinion piece is not meant to criticize the delicate balance that comes with governing an entire country but to provide additional insights into the broader implications of their actions.
President Putin’s evasion of arrest in Mongolia is part of a broader pattern of noncompliance with ICC rulings. I’ve mentioned the current situation in my own country, the Philippines, but other leaders accused of war crimes, such as Sudan’s former President Omar al-Bashir, have also traveled freely despite ICC warrants. This trend raises fundamental questions about the role of international justice in an increasingly multipolar world.
It is no longer a question of “Who watches the watchmen?”, but rather “What do watchmen do?”
The fact that this question needs to be asked in the first place paints a bleak future for international justice.
Keep in mind that the ICC exists to promote peace and order by holding individuals accountable for their actions. Its success depends on the willingness of countries to respect and enforce their rulings. But what happens when some nations defy global norms with little to no consequence?
Without a collective commitment to justice and peace, the world becomes a more dangerous place, where what is “right” is always who is in power.
