Suppose we grant the ICC every legal point it claims for itself. Harder questions remain. Is it a neutral referee standing above politics, or a political actor with interests of its own? Why did its first fourteen years of investigations all land on one continent? Why do warrants against the powerful gather dust while the machinery worked flawlessly in Manila? And why did cooperation arrive at the exact moment the court’s targets became the administration’s rivals? Part 4 puts the court itself on trial, using political science. The full scholarly paper behind this seven part series, with complete citations and academic analysis, is available for download at the end of this post. A companion podcast episode is also available there for those who prefer listening over reading.
The Hague Is Not The Way, Part 3: Sovereignty
The Philippines has its own Constitution, its own courts, and its own laws that cover exactly the kind of crimes being talked about in the Dela Rosa case. So why is a Filipino senator being taken to a court in the Hague Netherlands? This post breaks it down in plain language: what the Philippine Constitution actually says about outside courts having power over Filipino citizens, why the ICC was never supposed to be the first stop for justice, how the collapse of the Marcos and Duterte alliance changed the political picture entirely, and why the law most people think proves the ICC’s case actually does the opposite. No legal background needed. And if you want the full deep dive with complete legal citations and academic analysis, the FULL scholarly paper that is the basis for the entire seven part blogpost is available for download at the end of this post.