Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Discrepancies between the aspiration to apply ICL indiscriminately and the reality of its application described above drive perceptions of double standards. In this blog post, I will sketch the origins and context that led to double standards in ICL and consider how to differentiate double standards from selectivity and whataboutism. I will argue that recent developments illustrate double standards within the ICL framework. Given that the legitimacy of international criminal justice crucially depends on its impartial application, it remains paramount to work towards unmasking and remedying such double standards in ICL.

The relationship between IFFs and corrupt conduct of various stripes is, perhaps, intuitive. Bribery and embezzlement; money laundering; concealment of taxable business profits; even obstruction of justice around enforcement. All of these are tools in the apron of those who would facilitate and profit from IFFs, whether their misappropriated millions are enjoyed at home or, as is increasingly the case, sheltered and laundered abroad. It has been estimated that the amount of money lost to developing states via IFFs outstrips the amount received in foreign aid by a factor of ten. As the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime tells us, corruption is particularly corrosive because it undermines the proper functioning of governmental entities and institutions, discourages foreign direct investment and perverts the rule of law.