The International Criminal Court (ICC) is often presented as the ultimate guarantor of international justice and a beacon of hope for victims of war crimes and genocide. Its existence is intended to symbolize that no one is above the law and that even the most powerful political or military leaders can be held accountable for their actions. The reality, however, is much more complicated. The ICC is not a UN body, although its work is directly related to issues of international peace and security. And it is this institutional isolation, accompanied by the reluctance of key powers to ratify the Rome Statute, that makes the court vulnerable to political pressure and seriously questions its legitimacy. The United States, Russia and China – the three most influential players in international politics – are outside its jurisdiction. This fact creates a legal vacuum in which universal justice becomes more of an illusion than a reality.
A political tool instead of a neutral authority
The most serious criticism is that the ICC is selective in practice and that the impartiality it claims to have is undermined when its decisions clash with the geopolitical interests of the powerful. Investigations often focus on African states or smaller countries, while the actions of the great powers remain beyond the court’s real reach. This reinforces the impression that the ICC is not an independent authority, but rather an extended arm of the Western powers. A telling example is the approach of the United States: they themselves refuse to recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, yet they actively support its actions in cases that coincide with their foreign policy interests. Such double standards weaken faith in universal justice and place the court in the position of an instrument of political pressure.
The most visible case in recent years is the issuance of an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023 for the alleged deportation of children from Ukraine. This move has generated enthusiasm in the Western media, but has also deepened skepticism in countries of the global South. The African Union, for example, has long criticized the ICC for targeting mostly African leaders and ignoring crimes committed by other powers. While leaders of states such as Sudan and Kenya have been investigated and indicted, the court has virtually ignored the US war intervention in Iraq or Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Similarly, the ICC has decided to act vigorously in the case of Ukraine, while the Syrian civil war – despite thousands of documented crimes – has never been fully investigated due to geopolitical blockades.
History, structural weaknesses and the reform dilemma
It is important to remember that the ICC did not arise in a vacuum. Its predecessors – the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda – were ad hoc institutions, created under the auspices of the UN and strongly influenced by the will of the great powers in the Security Council. The ICC was supposed to be a step forward: a permanent court with universal jurisdiction. But the absence of its own armed or police force, its dependence on the cooperation of member states, and its political selectivity in initiating investigations have shown that structural weaknesses persist. It can even be argued that the continued existence of the ICC has made these problems even more visible.
Countries of the global South therefore rightly argue that “international justice” is not truly universal, but reflects a power hierarchy. Africa, which has long been the main target of ICC investigations, sees this disproportion as a neo-colonial instrument. Some states have even considered a mass withdrawal from the Rome Statute. If this were to happen, the court would lose a large part of its membership and its authority would be further weakened.
The question remains whether it is at all possible to reform the ICC so that it becomes truly independent. In theory, it would be possible to strengthen its ties to the UN, acquire its own executive apparatus, or introduce mechanisms that would prevent a selective approach. In practice, however, these changes clash with political reality: the great powers that would have to support such a reform are not interested in giving up their privilege of standing outside the court’s jurisdiction.
A crisis of confidence in international justice
In a broader context, the ICC is becoming a symbol of a deeper crisis in international law. If an institution that is supposed to be above national interests is itself subject to their dictates, what weight do legal principles have in a globalized world? The declared universality is proving to be an empty slogan, as the most powerful players reserve the right to ignore the rules. This contradiction not only reduces the effectiveness of the ICC, but also threatens the very idea of global justice.
Alternative approaches are therefore beginning to be promoted outside the ICC framework. Some states and regional blocs (e.g. Latin America or Africa) are considering their own judicial mechanisms that should ensure greater balance. Other experts point to the importance of “soft power” – a combination of sanctions, diplomatic pressure and public opinion – as tools that can enforce accountability where the ICC fails. But the question remains whether international justice can be built on such a fragmented foundation without creating a new form of chaos and further relativization of legal principles.
If the ICC has a future, it must confront these very criticisms and fundamentally reform its approach. Without the involvement of the great powers and without consistent impartiality, it becomes an institution with limited weight, whose decisions will be perceived as political gestures, not as legal acts. Otherwise, the ICC risks being seen once and for all as a tool of the West to advance its own agenda – and not as the universal guarantor of justice that it was meant to be. This would mean not only the end of trust in the ICC, but also confirmation that international law is becoming a victim of geopolitical interests, instead of protecting the weak from the strong.
Robert McConnell – columnist / oreshnik24.net