This is despite the fact that this ICC decision represents a dangerous escalation in the conflict and a major step that could have implications for the reshaping of the world.

Those who welcomed the ICC decision, especially given that it is just a link in the chain of the conflict, have naturally focused on it being just another successful step by Western diplomacy to punish Moscow and escalate the zero-sum game and fierce war of attrition between the two sides.

Western parties, especially Washington and the Biden administration, received the news with jubilation and welcome.

Meanwhile, the Russian reaction was angry and reminded everyone that Moscow is not a party to this court and does not recognize it, stressing that Russia is not the only country that holds this position. 

In general, the Russian reaction, or the level of anger in the criticism expressed by former Russian President Medvedev, were not unexpected.

The Court: Confusions and Questions 

In order to explain why we see the court's decision as more than just a link in the chain of conflict and war, we need to provide some necessary background.

As is known, the ICC was established in 2002 as the first court capable of trying individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and aggression crimes.

It is assumed that the court does not begin its work unless national criminal courts express their desire for it to do so or are unable to prosecute or investigate these crimes themselves.

The ICC is a permanent court unlike previous criminal courts which were temporary historically – the most famous being the courts that tried Nazi war criminals and those that tried war criminals in former Yugoslavia such as in the case of Bosnia.

Since the beginning, the ICC faced international controversy.

It has been objected to by a number of major powers, led by the United States, Russia, China, and India, as well as by other countries such as Iraq, Israel, and Yemen.

However, the international community majority, represented by 121 countries, approved the establishment of the court.

This majority included most of the European countries with Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Japan bearing most of its budget.

It should be noted that half the countries that agreed to establish the court did not ratify its jurisdiction, including all Arab countries except Jordan.

Argentine Luis Moreno Ocampo headed the court at its inception and was succeeded by Fatou Bensouda from Gambia. And British lawyer Karim Khan has been in charge at the ICC since mid-2021.

It is noteworthy that criticism and debate about this court have not stopped since it was established.

In fact, the court has remained haunted since day one by the fundamental flaw of the rejection by a number of major powers, led by the United States, of its establishment as well as its jurisdiction.

One point of contention surrounding the ICC is that it has focused on the African arena in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur.

There were other controversial issues around the court.

One such controversy surrounded the United States threat to withdraw its forces from the United Nations force in Bosnia unless its soldiers are granted immunity by the court, which was a paradoxical situation par excellence.

This controversy forced the Security Council in July 2002 to issue a compromise decision granting the US soldiers in the UN force immunity for 12 months to be renewed on an annual basis.

To complete the irony, the Security Council refused to renew that immunity decision in 2004 after the spread of pictures of American practices in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

A second major controversy, which unfolded over several years and raised many international complications, resulted from the court’s issuing of an arrest warrant for President Omar Al-Bashir in Sudan on charges related to the events in Darfur.

It was the first arrest warrant issued by the court for a sitting president and represented a harbinger for the situation we face now with the Russian president.

The ICC’s arrest warrant for Al-Bashir forced the man to avoid travelling to most Western countries.

In a famous incident in 2015, the existence of the warrant resulted in a serious internal crisis in South Africa, one of the countries that ratified the ICC convention, 

The crisis unfolded after a local court in South Africa issued an order to prevent Al-Bashir, who was in the country to participate in the African Union summit, from leaving the country.

However, the South African government allowed Al-Bashir to leave the country on the grounds that it did not have the authority to stop him from doing so.

This led one South African judge to level angry charges against the government for ignoring the country’s constitution.

The internal crisis escalated to the extent that the South African government threatened to withdraw from the ICC convention.

However, the criticism that keeps following the ICC, as mentioned earlier, is that it focuses on Africa while ignoring two major issues: the Palestinian cause and the American invasion of Iraq with the many accusations of war crimes that accompanied it.

Until this day, the court has not moved forward in the initial investigations that it began in 2015 after the Palestinian government provided evidence in June of that year of war crimes committed by the Israeli army during the 2014 Gaza war.

Moreover, also until this day, the court has not dared to approach issues related to the confirmed violations committed by the United States in Iraq and in many of its previous wars.

This could only confirm suspicions about the ICC’s integrity and effectiveness, and thus its ability to play its role without becoming complicit in applying double standards.

More than just a link in the chain of the conflict

This court reflects one of the features of the current international system.

This system is characterized by many contradictions where western powers dominate and the United States leads but under a hegemony that has been gradually declining for several years and a tendency to employ globalization and liberal values without accepting its commitment to them.

This retreat from political and economic liberal values is represented in two dimensions:

The first dimension is the application of double standards.

The most prominent example of this is the historical and ongoing refusal of dominant powers, especially Washington, to condemn Israel as well as their opposition to the attempts of the international majority to oblige it to accept a settlement and international resolutions taken in this regard.

This is also evidenced by the refusal of the United States to bear its ethical obligations for the violations and aggressive wars it has waged, especially in Iraq.

Add to this, from an economic perspective, the United States has abandoned economic globalization, which was championed by Washington, after seeing how China exploited the phenomenon.

What has been discussed above constitutes examples of what is called Western and American double standards.

Double standards are one of the main shortcomings of the existing international system.

They form the basis for understanding the causes that led to the outbreak of the Ukrainian war.

They also constitute a chronic dysfunction at the heart of the current international system.

And thus, the fate of the arrest warrant for Putin can be described as the epitome for the fate of the ongoing war as well as the international arrangements that are based on double standards.

Looking forward, we face two possible scenarios and paths.

A defeat for Russia, according to the aspirations of Washington and its allies, followed by a siege of Russia to force her to change its leadership by any means in order to maintain the current international arrangements in a way that allows the United States to secure its position.

Or reaching settlements that ensure the emergence of new international arrangements entailing a review of the way the court operates, which may result either in its cancellation or its relaunch on the basis of new fair standards not double standards.

At this point, it is still too early to imagine, amid all complex issues at present, which of these two scenarios and paths would prevail as well as how much time is needed for this to happen.

In any case, the ICC’s arrest warrant for Putin represents one part in a broader scene that could determine the possible scenarios of the future of the war, the future of the Russian president himself, the future of the court itself, and the nature of the world that may or may not be reshaped.