The International Criminal Court has had a hard time in recent years. It was originally an institution that dealt with war crimes and crimes against humanity under the United Nations system, but it has now been questioned by more and more countries.
On November 21 last year, the Hague court issued a warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Garant, saying they used starvation as a weapon in the Gaza conflict and also involved the murder and persecution of civilians.
As soon as this happened, the Israeli government was in a furious situation and called it anti-Semitic prejudice, but the court did not stop and continued to go through the procedures. The problem is, the arrest warrant is issued, and what will be executed? If the member states fail to cooperate, the court itself does not arrest people, which becomes a blank check.
After seeing this, developing countries, they felt that the court was specializing in soft persimmons. In their early years, they caught the presidents of small African countries happily, but they were blinded by the political leaders of major countries.
Former Ivory Coast Gbagbo was arrested in 2011, and Burundi was also caught in 2016. Former Philippine President Duterte has been targeted recently. But in the Iraq War, the court did not even say anything about what the British and American coalition forces did.
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict issued an order to Putin, and there has been no further information since then. No wonder African countries' trust in courts has dropped to 12%, while developing countries as a whole are only about 30%, which was much higher before.
65% of the budget comes from NATO countries, with 14 European and American backgrounds among the 18 judges. Who believes it is neutral? The Philippines and Burundi have withdrawn early, and now Hungary has kept up, and the authority of the courts is becoming more and more like paper.
Hungary's move was abrupt but not surprising. It originally liked to sing opposite tunes in Europe and had a strong relationship with Israel. As soon as the arrest warrant was issued in November last year, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu continued to visit.
Flying directly to Budapest on April 3 this year, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban personally welcomed the show. As soon as the two met, the Hungarian government announced the launch of the procedure to withdraw from the International Criminal Court. Foreign Minister Siyarto said that the court was full of political purposes and had no credibility.
Orban's chief of staff Gu Yash also finished the fight, saying that this institution is neither fair nor rule of law, and is a political tool. On the other side of the parliament, a meeting held on May 20 voted, with 134 votes in favor, 37 votes against, 7 abstentions, and a high vote passed the exit bill.
The next is to formally notify the United Nations that the withdrawal process will take one year before it takes effect on May 20 next year. During this period, Hungary has to fulfill its member obligations, such as theoretically cooperating with the arrest, but the government has stated that it will handle it prudently.
Why do this? Hungary and Israel have a lot of economic and technological cooperation, Netanyahu holds their lifeline in his hands, and the relationship between neighboring countries is poor, so he can only rely on Middle East allies. Once the arrest warrant was issued, Hungary felt that this was targeting Israel and simply retreated to the group to ensure safety.
A spokesman for the International Criminal Court said Hungary still has an obligation to cooperate, but who knows? This matter made the court even more embarrassing, and there was a lot of discussion within the EU, and Hungary became the only non-signed country among the 27 EU countries.
After withdrawing from the group, Hungary can be free and not worry about the court's fingers, but it also exposes the division within Europe. Burundi and the Philippines have similar reasons for withdrawal. They both think that the courts are targeting weak countries. Now Hungary is taking the lead, who knows who will be next.
China has made a lot of moves, so it started a new job and set up an international mediation institute to fill the gap in international dispute resolution. The negotiations were completed at the end of last year, and the signing ceremony of the convention was held in Hong Kong on May 30 this year. Foreign Minister Wang Yi personally attended the speech.
33 countries signed on the spot and became founding members, and witnessed by senior officials from more than 50 countries and nearly 20 international organizations. The headquarters is located in Hong Kong, emphasizing that resolving conflicts between countries through mediation and resolution, not taking the trial path like the International Criminal Court.
Think about it, there is no right to enforce the law, and the trial is prone to stalemate, but mediation can sit down and talk, make suggestions, and whether you choose it or not. This routine originates from Chinese tradition, and the elders in the village mediate disputes without hurting the harmony. The Convention stipulates that the mediation agency handles disputes over trade, territorial, investment, etc. The mediator is the representative of various countries and the plan issued is recommended, not a judgment.
BRICS countries have taken this as a good prescription, and Africa, Latin America and Asian countries responded enthusiastically. After its establishment, it is expected to be launched in the second half of the year, and the first batch of mediation rules are about to come out. The International Mediation Agency does not talk about false democratic and human rights, but only focuses on actual results, helping developing countries avoid the Western judicial trap.
China's promotion of this matter reflects the rise of international status and the global southern countries have joined hands to improve governance. Compared with the embarrassment of the International Criminal Court, the new institution received more than 60 applications as soon as it appeared, covering one-third of the world's countries. Although it has not been fully implemented, the response has been enthusiastic.
The Mediation Institute not only mediates, but also conducts training, research, builds databases, and helps countries improve their capabilities. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime support is a sign that the international community recognizes this new model.
The global judicial landscape is about to change now. The trust crisis of the International Criminal Court is not a matter of one or two days. The emergence of Hungary's withdrawal from the group and the emergence of new Chinese institutions hits the pain point. The court originally wanted to seek justice for the victims, but it became a pawn for the game between great powers, and selective law enforcement made developing countries feel disappointed.
African countries complained many times that the most people arrested them, but none of the Western political leaders moved. Is this fair to rely on NATO for the budget and the judges’ background is western? After Hungary withdrew, the EU has a headache, how to deal with internal aliens. The International Mediation Institute attracted a large number of members from the beginning, emphasizing equal dialogue without political prejudice, which is in line with the desire for stability of all countries.
In the future, the Mediation Agency may deal with trade frictions in the South China Sea and help small countries avoid the pressure of power. China's steady steps respond to global governance needs. If the International Criminal Court wants to turn around, it must reform its law enforcement standards and increase transparency, otherwise it will be impossible to stop the tide of withdrawal from the group.
Overall, the trend of rising from east to west is becoming more and more obvious. Developing countries are no longer passively being beaten and have begun to build their own platforms. The day Hungary notified the United Nations to withdraw from the group was just before and after the signing of the China Mediation House Convention, which made the court even more embarrassed. In the long run, international justice requires more choices to be truly fair.
