President Vladimir Putin of Russia recently paid an official visit to Mongolia, marking his first trip to a member state of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As a State party to the Rome Statute, Mongolia is obligated to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction, especially since the court issued an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin for his alleged war crimes in Ukrainian-occupied territories. Despite reminders from the EU and histrionic urge from Ukraine for Mongolia to meet its obligation under international law, Vladimir Putin was welcomed by a guard of honor at a highly ceremonial manner. I argue two points in this piece. First, whenever major powers are involved, international organizations, including the ICC, often prove to be inefficient and ineffective. Second, Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh followed realist dictates, prioritizing national interests above all.
Major Powers and the ICC
A little knowledge of history would reveal that international organizations are unable to live up to its hopes and vision whenever a major power is involved. Two key points must be addressed to explain why the legitimacy of judicial institution is frequently challenged. First, the court lacks an enforcement mechanism or body, meaning that its support relies heavily on close cooperation with member states worldwide. This cooperation involves various legal actions, such as arresting individuals and transferring them to the ICC detention center in The Hague, among others. If a member state is unwilling to cooperate or lacks the capacity to do so, it can lead to the court’s operational failure. Second, although more than 120 states have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, major powers such as the United States (US), Russia, and China are not members. The relationship between the ICC and these major powers is complex. The court has a cooperation agreement with the United Nations that the Security Council of the UN (UNCS) can refer cases to it. However, it is important to note that any of the five permanent members of the UNSC can veto resolutions that refer situations to the ICC.
In simpler terms, the court is often ineffective when major powers are involved due to its limited authority. For instance, Antony Blinken, the US Secretary State, clearly pointed out that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the conflict between Israel and Palestine, vehemently rejecting the arrest warrant against senior Israeli leaders. China, on the other hand, remained outside the ICC due to its traditional views on state sovereignty. Chinese leaders argue that the ICC would violate the international principle of state sovereignty and could be used as a political tool to interfere in a country’s domestic affairs. Although Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000, it formally withdrew from the ICC after the court classified the Russian annexation of Crimea as an occupation. For Russia, the court has never become a “truly independent body of international justice.” Lastly, Israel recently claimed that the ICC was “built for Africa and for thugs like Putin, and not for the West and its allies.” Under these circumstances, the court cannot effectively operate as a global defender of justice.
Mongolia’s Dependence on Moscow
To begin with, Mongolia’s commitment under the Rome Statute legally obligates it to arrest and transfer Vladimir Putin to The Hague. For evident reasons, it simply refused comply with the court warrant. Historical and economic ties coupled with geographic proximity to Russia necessitates Mongolia to maintain close and friendly relations with both Moscow and China. Given that Mongolia possesses a huge piece of real estate between two giants, geography cannot be simply ignored. Russia exerts substantive economic leverage over Mongolia which grants it geopolitical dependency: (i) approximately 90 percent of petroleum products consumed Mongolian industries and other sectors are imported from Russia; (ii) 20 percent of the total electricity required domestically is sourced from Russia; (iii) according to IMF data from 2023, Russia is Mongolia’s second-largest trading partner after China, accounting for 13 percent of the country’s total trade; in comparison, the EU collectively ranks Mongolia’s fourth-largest trading partner.
In a political conundrum, Mongolian leaders grapple with the choice between national interest and international law. Leaders typically depend on rational theories and cost benefit analysis when making policy decisions. The end objective is to maximize the national interest of a country. The foreign policy behavior of Mongolia was guided by what is known as ‘realism’ in international relations. The economic situation in Mongolia suggests that strained relations with its powerful neighbor could have severe consequences for the country’s economy, industries, and people. For a small country like Mongolia, attempting such action would be suicidal and arresting Vladimir Putin, the leader of a country with a large nuclear arsenal, would be an impossible task. Mongolia’s compliance with the ICC founding treaty entails moral considerations that are often subordinate to national interests, in line with a realist perspective. To date, Mongolia has adopted a neutral position regarding the Ukraine War, choosing to abstain from the UN General Assembly resolutions. Although it advocates for democratic ideals, Mongolia’s refusal to comply with the ICC arrest warrant is testimony to its neutrality out of necessity.
What is Awaiting Mongolia?
Mongolia fails to fulfill its obligation under the Rome Statute by declining to arrest Vladimir Putin, which is tantamount to a breach of its duty to cooperate. In this context, the ICC could refer the issue to the Assembly of States Parties, the governing body of the institution, under a non-compliance procedure. While the ICC may take political and diplomatic actions, legal experts note that a state does not face severe repercussions. Besides, the ICC could refer Mongolia to the UNSC for censure, which could result in a resolution addressing the issue. However, due to the ICC’s difficult relations with major powers such as Russia, achieving consensus on punitive measures would be challenging. On the other hand, Mongolia’s actions could damage its international reputation and its relations with countries that support the ICC. For instance, some member states of the EU might impose unilateral sanctions or restrict trade with Mongolia. However, such actions are unlikely to inflict significant harm on the Mongolian economy, emphasizing that the EU collectively accounts for only about five percent of the country’s total trade. Some experts express concern that Mongolia could become a temporary safe haven for serious criminals. While this scenario is unlikely, the case of Vladimir Putin is sui generis (of its own kind), prompting Mongolia to avoid jeopardizing its economic ties with Moscow.
Conclusion
In summary, the ICC aims to be a ‘911’ dial in the international system, yet it lacks an efficient way to enforce its decisions. In reality, within the words of prominent international relations theorist John Mearsheimer, international system is a self-help enterprise and there is no ‘911’ when you get into trouble. Mongolian leaders truly captured this point when they decline to meet their international legal obligations. In any situation, national interests always take precedence over everything else.
By: Sardor Allayarov
Sardor Allayarov is an International Relations specialist, a Visiting Research Fellow at Lanzhou Jiaotong University, the People’s Republic of China and an Adjunct Faculty at Urgench State University, Uzbekistan.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
