ICC credibility gets called into question

(MENAFN) The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created with the noble goal of holding perpetrators of the most serious crimes accountable on a global scale. However, over time, the Court’s credibility has been called into question due to accusations of political bias, especially toward African nations, and its vulnerability to pressure from powerful countries, particularly those in the West. These concerns raise an important issue: Has the ICC lost its relevance in the realm of global justice?

Bias and Focus on Africa One of the ICC's major criticisms is its disproportionate focus on African countries. Despite having a global mandate, a large number of its investigations and prosecutions have been aimed at African leaders and conflicts, fueling accusations of neo-colonialism and selective justice. Many African leaders argue that the ICC has become a tool for Western political interests rather than a neutral judicial body. As a result, several African nations have considered withdrawing from the Rome Statute, challenging the Court’s fairness and legitimacy.

Major Powers Outside Its Jurisdiction The ICC’s authority is further weakened by the absence of key global powers like the United States, Russia, and China, which have not ratified the Rome Statute. The US, for instance, has expressed concerns that the ICC could be used as a political weapon against its military leaders due to its involvement in numerous overseas conflicts. To protect its personnel, the US has enacted laws such as the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which allows the use of force to free any US citizens detained by the ICC.

Russia, initially a signatory to the Rome Statute, withdrew its signature in 2016 after the ICC labeled its actions in Crimea as an “occupation,” a term Russia strongly opposed. Russia has since criticized the Court for not being an independent, effective tribunal. Similarly, China, while less vocal, has avoided joining the ICC to protect its sovereignty and prevent external judicial interference in its domestic and international policies.

An Instrument of a "Rules-Based Order" Critics argue that the ICC is often used to enforce a “rules-based order,” a concept heavily promoted by Western powers such as NATO and the EU. However, the rules of this order are often seen as flexible, adapting to the political interests of these powers. This lack of consistency has led to concerns about the objectivity of the ICC.

A notable example of this perceived double standard occurred in November 2024, when the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes in Gaza. This was seen as an exception to the Court’s usual focus on African nations and directly challenged Israel, a country that enjoys strong Western support, particularly from the US. Washington’s condemnation of the ICC’s actions and threats of sanctions further highlight the influence that powerful nations can exert on the Court.

The Ideal Versus Reality The idea of a global court delivering unbiased justice is undeniably important, but the reality of the ICC has strayed far from this ideal. The Court has been marred by political pressures, selective prosecutions, and inconsistent enforcement, undermining its credibility.

To restore the ICC’s relevance and effectiveness, significant reforms are necessary. These reforms should aim to insulate the Court from political influences, ensure fair treatment of crimes from all regions, and establish stronger enforcement mechanisms. Without these changes, the ICC risks becoming a symbolic institution, lacking the authority to uphold international justice.

In conclusion, while the aspiration for a fair and impartial international criminal court remains crucial, the ICC, in its current form, falls short of this vision. Comprehensive reforms are not only desirable but essential for its survival and effectiveness.

MENAFN26022025000045015687ID1109250666