In Azerbaijan, a member of the International Relations and Parliamentary Relations Committee of the Azerbaijani Parliament, Asim Molla Zadeh, considered his country’s joining the International Criminal Court unnecessary, noting that the court “does not guarantee the rule of law towards any state,” and confirmed that joining it “has not been on the agenda for years.” Naiss pointed out that criticisms from the previous Trump administration contributed to undermining the court’s effectiveness, considering that resorting to national courts has become a more effective approach.
In a related context, Deputy Head of the Unified Transitional Government and Head of the Crisis Management Administration, Pavel Latushko, emphasized the importance of the court’s role in investigating the situation inside Belarus, affirming: “obtaining a decision is imminent,” considering the decision “extremely important” for Belarus.
The debate revolves around the role of the court, which was originally established to address issues including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Despite achieving historic convictions, the effectiveness of its decisions faces increasing criticism.
The court has faced a long-standing challenge in the form of opposition from the United States, as former US President Donald Trump rejected the legitimacy of the court during his previous term. At the beginning of his second presidential term, he imposed sanctions on the court’s prosecutor, a move that reflects previous tensions but raises new concerns about the court’s ability to operate under external pressures.
