ON DEC 18, THE UNITED STATES' Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that punitive sanctions were being imposed on two judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC),

 https://x.com/NuryVittachi/status/2016698140418777231

Nury Vittachi

@NuryVittachi

By Grenville Cross

ON DEC 18, THE UNITED STATES' Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that punitive sanctions were being imposed on two judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Georgia’s Gocha Lordkipanidze and Mongolia’s Erdenebalsuren Damdin. This was to punish them for being “directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals, without Israel’s consent, including voting with the majority in favor of the ICC’s ruling against Israel’s appeal on December 15”. The case arose out of the ICC’s decision to prosecute the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, to which the US, given its complicity, objected. In other words, Rubio was using a mechanism designed to penalize terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal syndicates against international jurists whose “crime” was to discharge their duties under the Rome Statute (to which 125 countries are States Parties). Judicial intimidation of that sort is globally repugnant, including throughout the common law world, of which the US was, until the likes of Rubio trashed its reputation, a distinguished member. . PENALIZING JUDGES ATTACKS THE RULE OF LAW To penalize jurists for the judgments they reach after evaluating the evidence and applying the law is a frontal assault on the rule of law, the bedrock of any successful society. This is not rocket science, and had Rubio been in the least interested in understanding how criminal justice operates, any member of the US Supreme Court could have explained it to him. His actions made a mockery of his country’s membership of the IAJ (from which, strangely, the US did not withdraw when it stepped back from 66 international organizations, conventions and treaties on Jan 7). . JUDGES MUST BE ABLE TO DO THEIR JOBS As the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), a grouping of civil society organizations in 150 countries that fights for global justice, explained (Jan 5), Rubio’s actions “undermine the basic principle that judicial actors must be able to apply the law freely, without fear of coercion, intimidation or reprisal, and represent a direct threat against the Court’s independence”. The IAJ’s Charter, moreover, provides that “Judicial independence must be enshrined in the Constitution or at the highest possible legal level” (Art.2). The IAJ, therefore, should take its hat off to Hong Kong, whose Basic Law states, “The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference” (Art.85). It also provides that judges “shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions” — which, while protecting them from domestic repercussions, is, unfortunately, of little value when external threats materialize. . INTIMIDATION IS ALSO AN ATTACK ON JUSTICE This theme loomed large at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 (Jan 19). The chief justice, Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, in the wake of the conviction on national security charges of former media magnate Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, warned that any threats of sanctions against judges had “absolutely no place in a civilized society”. He roundly rebutted the foreign critics who claimed that Lai’s conviction showed “the rule of law is dead”. He emphasized, “The rule of law in Hong Kong is far more robust and enduring than the outcome of any single case,” and his fellow judges undoubtedly concur. He also pointed out that intimidation and threats were akin to bribery and corruption, given that “both are means of subverting justice”. Cheung’s words were timely, given earlier calls in the US Congress for sanctions against Hong Kong’s judges, and the European Parliament’s recent support for sanctioning its officials (Jan 22). Any such measures are wholly inappropriate in a jurisdiction whose record of upholding the rule of law and maintaining criminal justice is exemplary, as objective observers have acknowledged. . HONG KONG AHEAD OF ITS U.S. CRITICS As the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2025 confirmed, not only is Hong Kong’s adherence to the rule stronger than that of the US (24th out of the 143 jurisdictions surveyed, ahead of the US at 27th), but its Judiciary was reaffirmed as independent under the Basic Law. Indeed, when he visited Hong Kong for the opening of the legal year, the president of the International Bar Association (IBA), Claudio Visco, frankly explained that Hong Kong has a strong tradition of the rule of law, which remains the foundation of its legal system (Jan 19). He was correct, and the credit goes primarily to the Judiciary. Hong Kong’s Judiciary is renowned throughout the Asia-Pacific region for its commitment, objectivity and professionalism. Its judges, as their judicial oath enjoins, “administer justice without fear or favor, self-interest or deceit”. Everybody appearing before the courts knows they will be fairly treated, and if they are aggrieved by the outcome of their case, they can invoke their constitutionally guaranteed rights of appeal. . INTRIGUING DISTANCE BETWEEN VIEWS Immediately after Lai’s convictions, the IBA’s Human Rights Institute denounced “a dishonestly conducted and politically motivated trial”, claiming it represented “the final blow to Hong Kong’s democracy and rule of law” (Dec 15). However, Visco intriguingly distanced the IBA from the institute’s assessment. He explained that the institute was free to take positions that might not necessarily reflect the IBA’s official stance, which was revelatory. He might also have added that the institute’s director is none other than Baroness (Helena) Kennedy KC, the ideologue who is not only a patron of Hong Kong Watch, the anti-China propaganda outfit, but also served as “external adviser” to the infamous “Uyghur Tribunal”, which leveled false “genocide” allegations against China in 2021. She is also a co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which played a role in the calls for sanctions against Hong Kong in the European Parliament, meaning Visco’s distancing was wholly warranted. . THREATS PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE Although threats to judges are tantamount to perverting the course of public justice, those who seek to undermine Hong Kong’s legal system need to understand that its judges are people of substance, not straw figures. However unpleasant foreign intimidation may be, they will not buckle and will continue to dispense justice to the best of their ability, threats notwithstanding. . [This is an extract from a new report by Grenville Cross. Link to the full article is provided separately.]

1:21 PM · Jan 29, 2026

·

892

Views

https://x.com/NuryVittachi/status/2016698140418777231