There exists no control of the ICC, even when its general prosecutor is a corrupt criminal. The Court is reserved exclusively for the service of those who pay for it – the European Union.
'In 1998, the United Nations convened the Conference of Rome, which created the International Criminal Court (ICC). Of course, the aim was not to create a super-tribunal which would legislate, on behalf of the member states, in the name of humanity, but to possess a tool capable of judging criminals at the end of a war, when the institutions of the vanquished are diminished or destroyed.
Thus the statutes of the Court emphasize that it may only accept a case with the agreement of the local justice system. But these same statutes also state:that it may take on the case of a crime committed by a citizen of a non-member country, inside a member country, in place of the victim country; as well as a crime committed by anyone, anywhere, as long as it is handled by the Security Council of the United Nations.
In both cases, the Rome Statute, developed within the UNO and signed by a few States, may apply to all states, even that of non-members.
This is why the three greatest world States – China, the United States and Russia – refused to ratify it. They saw in it – quite rightly – a violation of the principle of sovereignty, formulated in the 18th century by the legal expert Emer de Vattel, and voted into action by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties .
Last September, the ICC declared admissible a complaint against the authorities of Myanmar, despite the fact that it is a non-member because it was said to have committed atrocities which provoked the exodus of the Rohingyas. The Court considered itself competent because the victims fled to Bangladesh, which is a signatory of the Rome Statute .
On this model, a family of the Muslim Brotherhood recently filed a complaint against President Bashar el-Assad and the Syrian representatives, although the Syrian Arab Republic is not a member of the Court. The family claims to have witnessed various atrocities and was obliged to flee to Jordan. The Court would have to ignore the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is the heart of Islamist terrorism and that it is listed as a terrorist organization in many countries. Logically, though, it could declare itself competent, since Jordan is a signatory of the Rome Statute.
However, on May 22, 2014, when the Western powers and their Gulf allies sought to engage the ICC via the Security Council in the context of the events in Syria, both China and Russia exercised their veto .
However, it makes no difference – the Court has acquired autonomy. It no longer pretends to help states render justice but has proclaimed itself the defender of humanity against states.'
Read more: How the ICC Intends to Violate UN Security Council Decision and Try Bashar al-Assad