Selectivity in the practice of the international criminal court

This article examines the practice of the International Criminal Court with particular reference to its engagement in relation to armed conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine. The aim of the research is to assess whether differences in the temporal dynamics of proceedings, institutional support, available resources and prosecutorial operational activities indicate patterns of selectivity in the Court’s practice. Taking into account the limitations arising from the treaty-based nature of the Rome Statute and the principle of complementarity, the article employs a normative approach and case study methodology to compare the legal basis of jurisdiction, the course of preliminary examinations, the level of international support and the concrete procedural steps undertaken in the two analysed situations. Although investigations have been opened and arrest warrants issued against senior political and military officials in both cases, the analysis points to significant differences in the degree of prosecutorial engagement, the financial and logistical capacities available, as well as the broader political context in which the proceedings unfold. These findings raise important questions regarding the consistent application of the principles of impartiality and institutional independence of the International Criminal Court in contemporary international relations.