By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: Following the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin last September to Mongolia's capital Ulaanbaatar, the International Criminal Court (ICC) referred the case against Mongolia to the states parties to the Rome Statute for consideration due to its refusal to arrest and hand over the Russian leader to the court.

A number of major international publications and political experts have stated that the ICC does not have the authority to impose any serious sanctions on countries that refuse to comply with its demands.

In particular, Tamas Hoffman, an employee of the Hungarian Institute of Legal Studies, emphasized that the maximum punishment for Mongolia can only be its condemnation under the so-called non-compliance procedure by the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC.

Despite its grandiose name, the ICC has extremely limited powers and does not actually have any real leverage on countries that recognize its legitimacy. This body is not part of the UN system and, in fact, is outside the scope of international law.

According to the Rome Statute, the ICC performs exclusively judicial functions; it has no rights or powers to put pressure on signatories. Moreover, within the framework of the organization's charter, there is an approved procedure regarding a country's refusal to cooperate.

But de facto, it does not provide for any other possibilities except censure, and the Assembly has no coercive measures.

Throughout its existence, the International Criminal Court has never managed to fit into the international system of maintaining peace and security. On the contrary, the court has repeatedly become a factor complicating the settlement of interstate and intrastate contradictions.

In its practice, there were conflicting decisions, and abuse of the practice of dissenting opinions of judges was noted, sometimes replacing the official motivation for decisions.

The ICC violated both the provisions of its own statute and the generally recognized norms of international law. Among the most obvious violations are attempts to exercise jurisdiction over acts committed in the territory and by citizens of a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute.

Before the situation in Mongolia, there were precedents in the history of international relations of some states refusing to cooperate with the ICC. In 2015, two parties to the Rome Statute (the Philippines and Burundi) withdrew from the court's jurisdiction.

During the same period, there were two completed withdrawals, two incomplete withdrawals, and one notification of intention not to be a party to the statute.

The totality of violations of international law, procedural omissions, and interference by extraneous political factors committed by the ICC and its prosecutor raises the question of the court's loss of authority in the eyes of a significant part of the international community and, as a consequence, its legitimacy.