By Gwynne Dyer Here's the good news. But Duterte does control the Senate and could do it eventually, if he cared about legality. He'd still have legal problems, because the Philippines was subject to the treaty when he ordered many of his murders. Even if the Senate did cancel the treaty, the country would stay subject to it for another year. But nobody is going to arrest Duterte now, and he doesn't seem worried about the future either. Duterte later warned that any U. Having settled the matter to his own entire satisfaction, he then went back to killing people. Death threats and death squads are his favorite political instruments, and his weird political charisma would evaporate if he wasn't killing people. He is not too picky about who does the work for him, either. But the number of killings dropped because the specialized anti-narcotics force, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, lacked the manpower to keep the killing rate up. By May, therefore, Duterte was letting the national police take part in the drug raids again. His sole concession to reality was to gather a hundred police who were facing complaints of rape, kidnapping and robbery and tell them in early August, on national television, that they too would face summary execution if they didn't straighten up. So Duterte is undeterred by ICC's interest in his case and the slaughter continues unabated. Official statistics say that 4,000 small-time drug dealers and cases of mistaken identity have been killed; the 77-page report submitted to the ICC by Filipino lawyer Jude Sabio says more than 8,000. Yet public approval of his actions is not far down from the landslide support he got in the 2016 election. Everybody knows that in these circumstances, there is zero probability of Duterte having to answer for his actions before a court. Even later, when circumstances may have changed, the chances of bringing him to justice are slim. So what is the point of bringing an ICC case against him? One reason is that this is the first major ICC investigation that targets a non-African regime. There were good reasons why all previous ones involved African regimes: The continent is home to one-third of the world's countries, most of its dictatorships, and most of its wars. Nevertheless, even competent, law-abiding African governments were starting to feel victimized, and it helps to have an Asian country on the list. But more importantly, this is part of a much broader initiative to bring the rule of law to a domain where legal justice was previously unavailable. Where can individual citizens turn to get protection of their own rights including the right to life against the government of a sovereign state that does not obey its own laws? Like that of Rodrigo Duterte. Obviously, this enterprise is not doing very well at the moment. The governments of the great powers refuse to let any higher court have jurisdiction over their treatment of their own citizens, and even lesser powers cannot be forced to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, which has neither an army nor a police force. Duterte will probably never have to answer for his crimes. Most crimes go unpunished everywhere, and there will never be universal justice. Nevertheless, the effort to create an international legal order is worthwhile, and not foredoomed. The ICC was not created to overthrow people like Rodrigo Duterte, who was, after all, elected by the Filipino voting public. So it is doing what it should, and it's far too early to say that its actions are futile. Gwynne Dyer gwynne763121476 aol.
