Opinion | The US is destroying the credibility of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

By Tom Fowdy

When the International Criminal Court (ICC) last year issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin pertaining to war crimes in Ukraine, from a neutral, as well as unaware, point of view it could only have seemed like an inevitable conclusion. Putin had decided to start a war, so surely, he should reap the consequences, right? In theory, this is a good thing, because who would deny that justice should be universal and that war criminals should be punished?

Except that is not how it works. Justice is delivered to some, but not to others. When the news emerged that the same ICC was considering a similar arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes in Gaza, the court quickly found it was facing overwhelming opposition from the United States. Not only did the White House put out a comment openly opposing the move, but it has been reported that US senators have also contacted the institution and threatened it with legislative action, there are no guesses as to who might have done that, Florida man anyone?

US threats to the International Criminal Court have a long history. In 2020, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, the man ironically responsible for pushing the massive Xinjiang "Uyghur genocide" propaganda campaign, placed sanctions on ICC prosecutors precisely because they sought to investigate Israel. The US, a non-signatory of the ICC to begin with, even as much as a law that authorizes military action against The Hague-based court should it ever trial an American serviceman. The US does not answer to it and likewise shields its allies, especially Israel, from any legal action from it. Hence, a US President has never ever been prosecuted for war crimes, even when it was a clear-cut violation of international law, such as the Iraq War.

Despite this, the world is expected to deliver Vladimir Putin to the dock to answer for war crimes, but just look the other way at Benjamin Netanyahu. The theoretical premise of international justice as distributed by the court is squarely undermined by the fact that there are "two tiers" of accountability in the world, a standard reserved for the US and its allies which is "above the law" and then a standard for everyone else who is "subject to the law." It is a system that is inherently unequal to the distribution of hegemonic and military power. Hence it creates a scenario of "do as I say, but not as I do." This bias has been further amplified by recent news that should a war break out over Taiwan; Taipei will also try to use the court to prosecute China, even if the territory is lawfully still Beijing's and as a matter of fact, there is no "invasion" in the legal sense as the war never ended.

This blatant two-tier system is destroying the credibility of the ICC. Essentially, it exists only to prosecute people whom the West is opposed to and does not have the power to influence the institution itself. If that is the case, and the West are only allowed to function according to their own political ends, why even have it at all? If surely, the court is subject to coercive actions for daring to speak up over the Israel-Gaza war, which is credibly described as genocidal by many observers, then quite frankly it is not fit for purpose and makes a mockery of justice. After all, nobody should take it seriously that the United States claims it stands for human rights and freedoms, it does not, only its own interests. Yet funnily enough, if China were threatening the court like this it would already be subject to a media and think-tank chorus singing about how it engages in "coercive" and "malign influence."

At the end of the day, if Vladimir Putin should be held accountable for the war in Ukraine, Benjamin Netanyahu should be too. Justice is not justice if that "justice" is selectively applied to suit the political interests of one party while covering for the crimes of another, this is completely contrary to the rule of law. Nobody will take this court seriously ever again considering such blatant and not even disguised double standards, which reminds us that the so-called "rules-based order" the US loves to talk about doesn't really exist. It's US-based rules, for everyone but themselves and their friends.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | The US's new propaganda offensive

Opinion | A week is a long time in politics...

Opinion | The US two-tier plan to crush China's development

Opinion | The real agenda behind America's 'overcapacity' complaints