Duterte’s Courtroom Spectacle Masks a Larger Issue

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been a thorn in the side of many world leaders, but none as brazenly defiant as former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte. His appearance in court on Wednesday was not just a spectacle for observers – it was a calculated move to shift attention away from the substance of his case.

Duterte’s lawyers have argued that their client is too frail to stand trial due to cognitive decline and poor health, citing his 81 years as evidence. However, his decision not to speak during the hearing speaks volumes about his strategy: by delegitimizing the ICC process through complaints of health and cognitive decline, he aims to undermine the legitimacy of the charges against him.

This tactic is reminiscent of Slobodan Milošević’s antics during his own war crimes trial in The Hague. Authoritarian leaders often use such tactics to evade accountability for human rights abuses and brutality.

The Duterte Doctrine: A Pattern of Impunity

Duterte’s actions are part of a larger pattern of impunity for leaders who have turned a blind eye to human rights abuses and engaged in outright brutality. His own record on extrajudicial killings, which led to the ICC charging him with murder, is well-documented. The Philippines’ war on drugs was marked by widespread violence and human suffering – but Duterte consistently denied culpability and shifted blame onto his opponents.

The fact that he has been able to evade accountability for so long speaks volumes about the lack of will at the international level to hold leaders to account for their actions. The ICC, despite its best efforts, is often hamstrung by a lack of cooperation from member states – and it’s telling that Duterte was allowed to skip out on trial altogether for almost two years before being forced back into court.

The Philippines’ war on drugs resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings, with many victims’ families left without justice. The failure to hold leaders accountable for such atrocities undermines the rule of law and emboldens future perpetrators.

Accountability Will Be a Long Shot

The ICC has a dismal track record when it comes to securing convictions against high-profile leaders. Milošević, Charles Taylor, and Jean-Pierre Bemba all managed to evade justice despite facing serious charges – often due to diplomatic wrangling and clever lawyer work.

That’s why it’s hard not to be skeptical about the chances of Duterte facing genuine accountability. Even if he is eventually convicted (which seems unlikely), it will likely be on a technicality rather than any direct admission of guilt.

The ICC’s Role in Shaping International Norms

Duterte’s case is not just about him, however – it’s also about the role that institutions like the ICC play in shaping international norms around accountability and human rights. If the court fails to hold leaders accountable for their actions, it sends a signal that might be heard far beyond The Hague.

The recent rise of authoritarianism in countries such as Hungary and Brazil is a worrying trend that threatens democratic norms and the rule of law. If the ICC is seen as toothless, unable to hold leaders like Duterte accountable, it will embolden those who seek to ignore human rights and international law.

Duterte’s appearance in court might be a sideshow, but what’s at stake is far more significant than his own fate – the very principles of accountability and human rights are on trial. The world needs institutions like the ICC to uphold these principles, or risk ceding that responsibility entirely to the whims of powerful leaders.