ABSTRACT
The potential ‘mass withdrawal from the International Criminal Court that was reported by media outlets has yet to materialise. Similarly, the denunciation by several Andean states of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Convention has not led to large-scale abandonment of this system, as some predicted it would. The UK government – despite Brexit – seems to have shelved its plans for a withdrawal from the Council of Europe system of protection of human rights. The fear that powerful states will politicise international courts (IC) through passive-aggressive threats or weaken them by ignoring their decisions is well-founded. The current ‘critical juncture’ did not materialise overnight. It reflects broader trends in international law and global governance. The expectation in some quarters that ICs will develop the law progressively and effectively govern will also have to be kept in check. But in the absence of any viable alternative, ICs are here to stay as one of the main expressions of a rule-based international order.
