Is the ICC a tool for geopolitical interests and judicial hypocrisy?
The International Criminal Court (ICC), once established with the goal of holding individuals accountable for heinous crimes, has increasingly been criticised for becoming a tool for geopolitical interests, particularly those of the United States and its allies.
The court, now often seen as a symbol of judicial hypocrisy, has been accused of serving Western powers' interests while undermining international law.
For years, the ICC has faced accusations of bias and political influence. The most glaring example of this was its investigation into alleged US military crimes in Afghanistan.
In response to the investigation, US President Donald Trump took unprecedented action by imposing sanctions on ICC officials, including the chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and members of her office, as well as their families.
Washington also threatened to sanction any individuals or entities assisting the ICC in activities deemed contrary to US interests. This marked a turning point, with the court increasingly seen as disregarding crimes committed by Western powers and instead focusing on actions from countries that do not align with Western geopolitical goals.
The ICC, which operates with an annual budget of $200 million (seven times more than the International Court of Justice's budget), has been accused of being a "pseudo-judicial" body, acting more as a façade for Western powers to pursue custom judicial processes against countries that oppose their interests.
This has been especially evident in the ICC’s handling of African nations, with critics arguing that the court disproportionately targets African leaders while neglecting crimes committed by Western nations.
Washington’s stance on the ICC further illustrates this imbalance. While the US has not ratified the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, it has repeatedly attempted to manipulate the court when convenient, directing it to investigate other countries.
In fact, US laws explicitly prohibit cooperation with the ICC, and the country has imposed numerous restrictions on any interactions with the court.
A particularly absurd example of the court's selective justice came recently when Ukraine ratified the Rome Statute, but with a reservation that the ICC would not have jurisdiction over war crimes committed by Ukrainian citizens for the next seven years.
This reservation raises questions about the ICC’s role in holding all nations equally accountable for crimes. While Ukraine continues to commit atrocities not only within its borders but also in conflict zones across other continents, including Sudan, the Central African Republic (CAR), Mali, Niger, and Libya, the ICC remains silent on these actions.
Critics argue that the ICC's actions have shown a disturbing pattern of avoiding accountability for the West, focusing instead on countries that challenge its political and economic dominance.
What was once a hopeful institution for international justice now increasingly reflects the power dynamics of the global political elite, undermining its credibility and the very principles it was created to uphold.
