Former ICC Chief Prosecutor: "We need a global anti-corruption Court to prosecute world leaders”

A South African magistrate, former UN prosecutor in genocide and war crimes cases, argues that it is imperative to establish an International Anti-Corruption Court, capable of holding the world's corrupt leaders accountable, according to an interview with the investigative website Follow the Money.

"Without corruption, autocratic and repressive regimes cannot function. Without corruption, genocide cannot exist,” warns Richard Goldstone, one of the most respected international jurists, who was chief prosecutor of the UN-established International Criminal Tribunal and who handled cases related to the genocide in Rwanda and crimes in the former Yugoslavia.

In his view, the current international system is incapable of sanctioning large corruption networks that operate across borders, and this gap allows kleptocrats to prosper unhindered, while the populations of their countries bear the costs. Goldstone says there is a major "gap” in international law when it comes to combating high-level corruption. Although formal conventions and mechanisms exist, they have no real force of enforcement, and corrupt leaders often manage to avoid criminal liability, argues the former chief prosecutor of the ICC. In the absence of an effective tool, he says, corruption becomes a global system protected by borders, complicity and political interests.

His experience in South Africa, where he investigated the violence of the post-apartheid transition period, showed him how deeply the state apparatus can be infiltrated by obscure interests. His investigations led to the dismissal of high-ranking officials in the security structures, demonstrating that even state institutions can be used to undermine democratic processes and block political change.

Later, as part of the UN investigation into the "oil for food” program in Iraq, Goldstone uncovered shocking dimensions of global corruption: thousands of companies in dozens of countries were involved in bribes and illegal kickbacks, along with politicians and diplomats. However, those who benefited the most went largely unpunished, and this reality led him to conclude that the international legal system paradoxically favors the very people who should be sanctioned.

This "asymmetry,” as he calls it, became the driving force behind a new mission: the creation of an international court dedicated exclusively to combating grand corruption. The proposed court would have the power to investigate and prosecute heads of state, ministers and their networks of intermediaries - lawyers, bankers, consultants - without whom illegal financial flows could not exist. In parallel, a second component would aim to identify, freeze and recover illegally acquired assets.

The fundamental problem, Goldstone explains, is that money from corruption does not stay in the countries of origin. It is transferred to safe jurisdictions - luxury real estate in London, bank accounts in Switzerland, offshore companies in Panama or complex financial structures in Western Europe. Thus, states affected by corruption are forced to ask other governments for help to recover the funds, a process that is slow, inefficient and often blocked by political interests or lack of will.

In the absence of coordinated intervention, he says, the current system practically becomes a shield for kleptocrats. Even when there is evidence, international investigations can fail due to a lack of cooperation between states, and cases get lost in bureaucracy or are abandoned.

Goldstone warns that this reality has direct consequences for global stability. Corruption is not just an economic problem, but one of security and fundamental rights. It fuels conflicts, undermines democratic institutions and hinders the development of societies, condemning millions of people to poverty.

In his opinion, an International Anti-Corruption Court would operate according to the subsidiarity model, intervening only when states cannot or do not want to act. However, the major challenge remains convincing the great powers to accept such a mechanism, given that some of them have shown reluctance even towards other international institutions, such as the International Criminal Court.