The Hypocrisy of International Law

Speech to the Foreign Affairs Council of the Dutch Parliament, 10 April 2025 

Mr Chairman, 

From the letter sent by the government to the House of Representatives on 4 March 2025, it is clear that the government is not unsympathetic to the confiscation of Russian assets by the Netherlands. The government writes, ‘It can be argued that the aggression of the Russian Federation has disadvantaged the EU and thus also the Netherlands in particular.’  

Under international law, this is obviously highly controversial because it would mean that a country which is not (formally) a party to a conflict can start confiscating assets from one of the warring parties if it believes it has been harmed by the conflict. 

Would it therefore not be conceivable - no, indeed, completely logical - if countries (including our country, by the way), which suffered disadvantages from the illegal American aggression attack on Iraq in 2003 - just think of the refugee flows this caused, an attack for which, we now know, there was no justification because the weapons of mass destruction were never found - started confiscating American assets? No, this minister will surely be against that. 

Does this not demonstrate very well the hypocrisy of so-called “international law,” or the so-called “rules-based order” which globalists are so fond of flaunting? Should we not recognise that this “rules-based order” has nothing to do with “international law” and is merely “our order” that serves “our interests”? At least that is how it is viewed in much of the world, and rightly so. 

The showpiece of this so-called “international law” is, of course, the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Hungary, quite understandably, has recently announced it is going to leave the International Court of Justice. The United States, quite rightly, wants nothing to do with it.  Indeed, in February this year, President Trump announced sanctions against the International Criminal Court and anyone who helps the court, for example by detaining prisoners. 

My first question to the minister, are not the Dutch and the Netherlands also affected by this? Specifically, are President Trump's sanctions therefore also directed against the Scheveningen prison, a Dutch prison, where the court's suspects are incarcerated? Does this not mean that the presence of the international criminal court in the Netherlands is contrary to the Dutch interest? Not only because the international criminal court is the jewel in the crown of a globalist hypocritical so-called “rules-based order,” in which only those are arrested and tried if it happens to be politically convenient - so Duerte is, Netenyahu is not - something that as a country you should not be proud of but ashamed of, but also because, with Trump's imposition of sanctions against the ICC, Dutch interests may be directly harmed. This is quite apart from the fact that wanting to try world leaders like Putin for war crimes is precisely a danger to a peaceful international order because it seriously impedes the maintenance of relations and the start of peace negotiations with, in this case Russia. Also, the willingness of the Netherlands to take Netanyahu to task now that this can't be helped, the relationship with Israel is under pressure? How is the Dutch interest served by this? Can the minister explain? And shouldn't all this mean that the Netherlands, following Hungary's lead, should also decide to stop recognising the International Criminal Court?

We look forward to the minister's response.