The Anatomy of the Crisis: Problems of the Subjective Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court

The article examines the issues of the subjective legitimacy of the International Criminal Court, which is understood as the perception of the court by States and the professional community, the accused and victims as a institution with the legitimate right to hear criminal cases within its competence. The current practice of the ICC is perceived as an aggravating crisis of its subjective legitimacy, which is expressed in the persistent perception of this court by a significant number of countries and now by almost the entire academic community as an unfair and biased, extremely problematic institution, rapidly dispelling the hopes and illusions that were associated with its creation. An important factor in the current crisis of confidence in the ICC is the court’s inability to assess the impact on its own legitimacy of the inconsistency and inconsistency of its judicial decisions, as well as the abundance of special opinions attached to them. Using the example of the decisions of the ICC Chambers in relation to Afghanistan and Myanmar, it is shown that such ICC practice creates the impression of arbitrary application of law by ICC judges, which undermines confidence in the judicial decisions taken and has a detrimental effect on their non-enforcement.