On October 19, 2025, the world’s attention turned once again to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague as two high-profile cases involving controversial leaders—Vladimir Putin of Russia and Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines—unfolded in dramatic fashion. These developments, set against the backdrop of geopolitical maneuvering and questions of international justice, have reignited debates over the power and limits of the ICC, as well as the global community’s willingness to enforce accountability at the highest levels.
Vladimir Putin, Russia’s long-serving president, is expected to travel to Hungary for talks with former U.S. President Donald Trump, aiming to discuss prospects for ending the war in Ukraine. This anticipated meeting, reported by the Associated Press, comes despite the fact that Putin remains the subject of an ICC arrest warrant issued in March 2023. The warrant accuses Putin of involvement in the abduction of children from Ukraine during the ongoing conflict sparked by Russia’s invasion of its neighbor.
The ICC, established in 2002 and headquartered in The Hague, is tasked with holding leaders and senior officials accountable for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Yet, its efforts often bump up against political realities. The court relies on member states to enforce its warrants, and Hungary’s recent actions suggest little willingness to cooperate. Earlier this year, Hungary rolled out the red carpet for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is himself wanted by the ICC over allegations of crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict—charges Netanyahu vehemently denies. Following Netanyahu’s visit, Hungary’s nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced in April that his country would begin the process of withdrawing from the court.
Hungary’s move is not unique. Over the years, several countries have left or announced their intention to withdraw from the ICC, including Burundi, the Philippines, and, more recently, the military juntas in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. These African nations have accused the court of selective justice, echoing a refrain heard from other critics who claim the ICC targets certain regions or leaders disproportionately.
The United States, Russia, and China—three of the world’s most powerful countries—are not members of the ICC. According to the Associated Press, the United States under Donald Trump’s administration went so far as to impose sanctions on ICC officials, including chief prosecutor Karim Khan and several judges, after accusing the court of "illegitimate and baseless actions" targeting America and Israel. President Joe Biden’s administration later lifted those sanctions, signaling a shift in tone but not necessarily in policy. Russia, for its part, has flatly rejected the ICC’s authority and responded to Putin’s warrant by issuing its own warrants for ICC officials involved in the case.
Despite the ICC’s attempts to bring perpetrators to justice, enforcement remains a major challenge. To date, the court’s judges have issued warrants for 61 individuals, with 30 still at large. The ICC operates with a staff of over 900 and a 2025 budget just over US$228 million, according to its own records. Ukraine, notably, officially joined the ICC in January 2025—a move seen by many as a direct response to the Russian invasion and the ongoing search for accountability.
Meanwhile, the ICC’s internal dynamics are under scrutiny. Chief prosecutor Karim Khan is currently on leave amid an ethics probe into allegations of sexual misconduct. Khan has categorically denied the accusations, which include claims that he attempted to coerce a female aide into a sexual relationship and groped her against her will. The investigation’s outcome remains pending, and no date has been set for its completion.
While the ICC grapples with these external and internal pressures, another major case is making headlines: the prosecution of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. On October 19, 2025, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber ordered a comprehensive medical examination for Duterte to determine his fitness to participate in pre-trial proceedings, including the crucial confirmation of charges. The directive, reported by the oldest and largest Filipino-Chinese newspaper in the Philippines, followed a series of legal filings and deliberations under Pre-Trial Chamber I.
The panel assigned to examine Duterte comprises a forensic psychiatrist, a neuropsychologist, and a geriatric and behavioral neurologist. Their task is to assess whether Duterte suffers from any medical condition that could impact his participation in the ongoing pre-trial phase. They are also expected to recommend any special measures needed to accommodate his possible condition during the proceedings. The Chamber, composed of Judges Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou, and María del Socorro Flores Liera, has instructed the Registry to provide Duterte’s complete records to the panel, while ensuring the experts’ impartiality and confidentiality.
The panel’s joint or individual reports are expected to be filed before October 31, 2025. Duterte’s defense team, the Prosecution, and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) will have the opportunity to submit observations on the report by November 5, 2025, after which no further submissions on Duterte’s health are anticipated. The Chamber has emphasized the importance of "fair trial rights" for the former Philippine leader, underscoring the ICC’s commitment to due process—even for those accused of the gravest offenses.
Duterte’s legal saga began in earnest on March 11, 2025, when he was arrested upon arrival from Hong Kong at the ICC’s request. The charges stem from his administration’s notorious "war on drugs," which allegedly involved the creation, funding, and arming of death squads responsible for the extrajudicial killings of suspected drug users and dealers. Duterte was transferred to The Hague on the day of his arrest and appeared before ICC judges via video link on March 14, 2025. His confirmation of charges hearing, initially set for September 23, 2025, was postponed at the request of his defense team.
The Chamber previously denied Duterte’s request for interim release, citing his alleged "contention" of his arrest and detention, as well as efforts by his family to "delegitimise the Court’s proceedings" against him. The ICC’s careful attention to both the rights of the accused and the concerns of victims reflects the delicate balance it must strike in its pursuit of justice.
With Putin’s expected visit to Hungary and Duterte’s ongoing legal battles, the ICC finds itself at the center of a complex web of international relations, legal principles, and political realities. The court’s effectiveness—its ability to hold powerful leaders accountable—remains a subject of fierce debate. As more countries question its authority or withdraw altogether, and as critics charge it with inconsistency or bias, the ICC’s future hangs in the balance. Yet, for victims seeking justice and for those who believe in the rule of law, the court’s work continues to matter deeply, even when the odds seem stacked against it.
Amid shifting allegiances and mounting challenges, the ICC’s ongoing cases against Putin and Duterte serve as stark reminders of the enduring struggle to achieve justice on the world stage.