Opinion | US hegemony and the rule of law are two different things
By Tom Fowdy
On Monday the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that it would be seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the leader of Hamas, on the count of war crimes. While Hamas is held responsible for the October 7th massacre invading Israel and killing and abducting over 1000 people, Israel under Netanyahu responded with an absolutely relentless bombing campaign, mass destruction and invasion of the Gaza Strip that killed tens of thousands of innocent people and has been widely decried as a genocide.
It should be no surprise, however, that the news of Netanyahu's pending prosecution has drawn outrage from American politicians, who claim the court has no "authority" on the matter. As Speaker Michael Johnson stated: "The ICC has no authority over Israel or the United States, and today's baseless and illegitimate decision should face global condemnation" while US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken claimed: "It is shameful," he said. "[The] ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter." Many more unhinged Republicans called for sanctions on the court.
The blatant double standards of the US on this matter are painfully obvious, how is it that the US can happily cheerlead the court placing arrest warrants on Putin and Russian military leaders, but is unequivocally outraged that Israel is also targeted? Despite Biden's relatively mundane PR stunts pertaining to the conflict, for all intents and purposes the US has gone to the best of its abilities to shield and defend Israel from any international scrutiny over the brutality of its war in Gaza. It is effectively making it clear that international law applies to some, but not to others.
This is by no means a new thing, while the United States likes to claim it is a champion of "the rule of law," in reality, what we define as "US hegemony" that is, American dominance over the rest of the world in an economic and military sense, actually runs contrary to such. In being a superpower, the United States utilizes legal force, often unilaterally, to subjugate other countries to its political will accordingly, claiming it stands up for democracy and freedom under what it calls a "rules-based order." However, the US in fact simply dictates in accordance to what it deems its national interests to be and what it demands others comply with, it does not itself follow.
There is thus a two-tier system of international justice owing to the disparity of power in the international system. The rule "makers" are different to "the rule takers". Hence, we see that there is a long-woven history of crimes against international law committed by the US and its allies which they are never held accountable for, but often those from smaller countries who do so face justice at their hands, such as those who ruled Serbia in the Yugoslav wars, with the obvious example to the contrary being the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK, a war which was not only illegal, but also premised on a completely opportunistic lie. It might be added in this case, the ICC never even attempted to prosecute those involved, with the US also having passed the "American Service-Members' Protection Act" which authorizes the use of military force against those attempting to prosecute American servicemen.
As an extension of this US "exceptionalist" attitude to international law, Israel has also been effectively invulnerable to any accountability for its crimes with respect to Palestine. This is an attitude manifest not just in the "legal" sense, but also in all matters of public discourse and debate, hence the western mainstream media goes to great lengths to support Israel and shut down criticism of it. Thus, for the ICC to contemplate taking action is an incredibly bold and courageous step, but it is also one which will be fiercely opposed. The US will absolutely make the institution pay the price for this, but in the process, it will serve to reveal in its most unflattering form, this two-tier system of international justice and serve to discredit the court, its functioning, and international law altogether, which will only in the process hamper the credibility of the United States in presenting itself as a force for law and justice.
If America, after all, will not recognize the court, will not cooperate with the court, and threaten the institution accordingly, others may ask "Why can't I do the same?" It's all going to look a bit ridiculous if a China-Taiwan conflict breaks out and then suddenly we're all expected to follow what the court wants when Western politicians suddenly decide it is useful again, right? Even the Russia/Israel double standard constitutes an embarrassment for some. In this case, we learn squarely that US hegemony and the international rule of law, are two different things. International law for thee, but not for thee.
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 | History takes another surprise turn
Opinion | America's new era of inwardness
Comment