Using national law as a means of blocking the jurisdiction of the ICC: a comparative legal analysis of practices in the USA and russian federation

The article provides a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of the latest trends in countering the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) by states that are not parties to the Rome Statute, in particular the United States of America and the russian federation. The study covers the period of the international justice crisis in 2024–2026, characterised by a shift from diplomatic rhetoric of rejection to the use of harsh instruments of national law, economic sanctions and criminal prosecution of judges and prosecutors of the Court. The authors examine the convergence of American and Russian practices through the prism of the concept of lawfare, arguing that despite ideological and legal differences, both states use similar tools of “constructive obstruction of justice.” The article analyzes the legal nature of US presidential executive orders (in particular, Executive Orders 13928 and 14203) and Russian courts’ in absentia judgments as forms of abuse of right aimed at paralyzing the institutional capacity of the ICC. Particular attention is paid to the doctrinal challenges facing the Court, in particular the nemo dat quod non habet argument in the context of the Oslo Accords and the application of the Monetary Gold principle. Based on an analysis of the practice of the Appeals Chamber of the ICC (Al-Bashir case) and the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the article substantiates the thesis of the “verticality” of relations between the ICC and states, which excludes the application of immunities of officials (ratione personae) in cases of international crimes, even if the state in question is not a party to the Statute. The authors argue that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the occupied Palestinian territories is objective in nature and cannot be limited by bilateral agreements between the occupying power and the administration of the occupied territory. The conclusions emphasise that effective counteraction to the policy of sanctions pressure requires not only political solidarity from the international community, but also a clear legal qualification of the actions of aggressor states as a violation of erga omnes obligations. The article proposes to consider national judicial and administrative measures against ICC personnel as a form of internationally wrongful act that infringes on the autonomy of an international organisation.