There are several reasons why some states choose not to join the International Criminal Court (ICC), including issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction, human rights violations concerns and biases. Sovereignty concerns stem from the possibility of external entities meddling in national affairs. Jurisdictional worries involve the court's reach superseding local laws. Politics - encompassing alliances and global geopolitics— also factor into the decision. Some nations perceive the ICC as having an unfair focus on specific regions or countries.

These points highlight the intricate webs that international justice mechanisms entail. While the ICC seeks global accountability, acknowledging these dynamics without compromising such efforts is pivotal to nurturing wider participation and guaranteeing parity under the international legal framework.

Sovereignty Concerns: A major grounds upon which certain nations refuse to pledge allegiance to the ICC is due to this perceived threat to their own sovereignty. They might see the court as an alien body that could interfere with their national issues or have their leaders under investigation internationally without their consent.

Problems with Jurisdiction: There are some countries that have concerns about the ICC's jurisdiction and its impact on their legal systems. They might be worried that being a part of the court could hamper their ability to prosecute crimes locally or that their citizens could face prosecution for actions which aren't considered crimes under their national laws.

Political Factors: Joining the ICC can be highly influenced by political factors, including alliances and geopolitical dynamics. Countries might decide not to join or pull out of the court due to pressure from strong allies or regional groups, or as a way of showing dissent towards what they see as prejudices or unfair treatment by the global community.

Record of Human Rights Violations: Certain nations that are known to be violators of human rights refuse membership into the International Criminal Court (ICC). Their hesitation could arise out of fear for being called to answer for their previous actions that may have been unjust, or those they might still be committing. In abstaining, these countries seek to evade global attention and any legal consequences; but their nonappearance also underscores difficulties impeding global initiatives towards justice and holding perpetrators of human rights violations accountable worldwide. Dealing with these issues demands sustained calls as well as involvement by all interested parties to encourage wider participation in international systems of justice, while upholding human rights principles globally.

Rogue Nations: There are some nations considered as "rogue" or with questionable political reputation that choose not to be part of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This choice typically demonstrates a lack of interest in being answerable to international legal oversight or facing possible indictment for human rights violations or war atrocities. In their refusal to join ICC, these countries aim at shunning responsibility and preserving the sovereignty over their judicial systems.

Nonetheless, their non-membership in ICC points out challenges of reaching global accountability on grave violations of international law. It is important for encouraging wider participation in mechanisms of international justice irrespective from such circumstances is necessary - promoting accountability and upholding norms of human rights globally.

Perceived Bias: The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been accused of bias by its critics. This is mainly in relation to powerful states or cases with political weight, where it has shown partiality in its investigations and prosecutions. Some nations view ICC as a body that unjustly focuses on African countries, ignoring atrocities committed by other states - an action that further questions the body's neutrality and even its credibility.

Lack of Trust: The trust in the effectiveness and credibility of ICC can vary among countries particularly those with a history of conflict or strained relations with the international community- governments that doubt the ability of ICC to deliver justice fairly plus effectively. Consequently, some refuse to join or cooperate with its proceedings.

Legal Concerns: Countries might have concerns related to specific provisions of Rome Statute or implications joining ICC would have on their legal systems and national interests. These issues could include immunities for heads of state or limitations by the court's jurisdiction over certain crimes. For example, in Africa 34 out of 54 (approximately two-thirds) nations have not joined due to such legal concerns.

Resource Constraints: When countries decide to be part of the International Criminal Court, they are supposed to be involved in the operation support for the court and also should comply with their cooperation during investigations and provision of assistance as required by the court. Some countries, especially those with limited resources or other competing priorities, may shy away from dedicating resources towards ICC-related activities.

Alternative Mechanisms: States might find it more suitable to deal with international crimes through other mechanisms like ad hoc tribunals, regional courts or even domestic judicial systems. These mechanisms could be seen as more specific to the situation surrounding the crimes or providing more control and legitimacy to involved countries.

Israel Factor: Israel's refusal to become a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC) stems from apprehensions of potential investigations and lawsuits over its military undertakings in Palestinian territories. The State argues that its own legal system is competent enough to deal with any charges of malpractice. Besides, Israel also challenges the ICC's jurisdiction on matters pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - insisting it be settled through negotiations rather than international legal forums.

This abstention decision echoes wider themes within Israel about sovereignty holding nations above commitments made by signing agreements, including complexity which have been illustrated by conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians that continue shaping approaches towards international institutions as well as legal frameworks placed upon them by these bodies.

Absence of India: India remains aloof of the International Criminal Court (ICC) mainly out of the concerns related to the jurisdiction of the court and its effect on national sovereignty. India thinks that the ICC's reach can encroach upon its internal legal mechanisms and, more significantly, issues related to terrorism or national security - which it sees as sovereign matters. Moreover, India has had reservations with regard to what it perceives as biased decisions by the ICC driven by political motives in some instances.

This is why India steers clear from joining the ICC; instead, it chooses to deal with international crimes through bilateral or regional mechanisms. Nonetheless, this approach does not compromise India's stance on human rights and justice while avoiding entanglement within what it views as compromising international setups like the ICC.

USA's Absence: America remains outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. has voiced its reservations about the ICC's possible control over its people, mainly those involved in military and government positions. Furthermore, the U.S. has condemned what it sees as partiality and politicization by the ICC in different cases. To counter this, the U.S. has put in place laws like the American Servicemembers' Protection Act that act as a shield to its citizens from falling under ICC jurisdiction.

Despite cooperating with the ICC on some specific instances, America continues to doubt the court's legitimacy and has chosen not to be part of it as a state member. Some critics argue that this is mainly due to USA's long record of human rights violations and history of meddling in other country's affairs sometimes in the form of invasion along with open support for Israel despite its poor record in the realm of protection of human rights.

Influence of Powerful Countries on ICC: Strong countries cast their long shadows over ICC. They twist and turn their political muscles, tangoing with economic interests in a pressure play upon the court's case choice, probes, and litigations. The UN Security Council's veto-wielders can play Godot - delaying or directing referrals to ICC as they wish. And as if silence wasn't loud enough, mighty nations fold their arms in non-cooperation: no extradition here, no evidence there. Even in the quiet corridors of finance, noise finds a way: contributions croon lullabies over some operations while leaving others resource-starved at ICC.

These intricacies paint a bleak picture for the ICC; independence seems like an elusive dream, and effectiveness in bringing behemoths to justice? Almost far-fetched. But this is just business as usual for the powerful players shaping international politics and evading accountability for their monstrous actions.

Limitations of ICC:

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has limitations, one of which is jurisdictional constraints since it only prosecutes crimes that take place within its member states or those referred by the UN Security Council. Investigations can be halted by political influence especially when powerful nations are part of the case. The resource limitations cripple its capacity to prosecute cases effectively; on top of that, if a state refuses to arrest suspects, then the ICC's hands are tied due to its reliance on state cooperation.

These challenges signal the difficulty in achieving universal accountability for serious international crimes. It also underscores lack of equal justice worldwide even more so because certain states can act with impunity - these show that more work needs to be done towards strengthening ICC mandate globally and ensuring equitable justice all over the world.

The ICC is funded by contributions from its member states, the majority of which are well-off nations. These contributions go towards financing the operations of the court: investigations, prosecution, and delivery of justice. However, the Court's reliance on these wealthier nations for financial support has raised concerns about a potential imbalance or an undue sway of certain decisions which could be influenced disproportionately due to it.

Moreover, should these powerful actors act against prioritizing their interests over supporting what the ICC stands for, such action might compromise any future effectiveness of ICC in holding them accountable for their actions toward international crimes; clearly therefore while such support is important also highlights challenges behind ensuring independence and neutrality in ICC including its operations as recipient of these funds.

Countries that do not follow the International Criminal Court's (ICC) instructions can find the court with little enforcement mechanisms. It is capable of issuing arrest warrants or summonses, financial penalties, or referring non-cooperation to the UN Security Council; nevertheless, implementation depends on the state's voluntary cooperation.

The ICC needs to rely on its member states for arresting suspects and implementing decisions; however, non-member states might withhold cooperation. The ability of the ICC to ensure compliance differs based on a state's political will and commitment to international justice norms - underscoring challenges surrounding bringing powerful actors to task for grave international crimes that establish their interests differently within global governance mechanisms.

Conclusion:
Deciding to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a complicated and multi-faceted choice for any state. It involves considerations like sovereignty and human rights records, political dynamics - even biases and resource availability along with legal concerns that range from top to bottom in the governmental hierarchy.

The benefits of contributing to global accountability are weighed against risks that could compromise a state's sovereignty or domestic legal system; this while playing an essential role in holding perpetrators accountable - ICC's functionality hinges on wide participation worldwide apart from cooperation by all states. The influential countries abstaining from joining or cooperating weaken ICC's standing, diluting its authority to deliver on its mandate as a result also hampering their interests through further worsening already precarious situations tied up with international injustices identified by court cases instituted against them.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565