Summary & Additional Remarks by Geopolist | Istanbul Center for Geopolitics:
The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has triggered a fierce backlash from U.S. leaders, exposing the deeply ingrained American exceptionalism that underpins the global legal order. Rather than seeing the ICC’s decision as a long-overdue step toward justice, U.S. politicians—from both parties—have reacted with hostility, seeking to undermine the court’s authority.
Senator Lindsey Graham explicitly rejected the idea that international law applies to the U.S. or its close allies, stating that the ICC “was not conceived to come after us.” Similarly, Senator Tom Cotton dismissed the court as a “kangaroo court” and personally attacked ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, calling him a “deranged fanatic.” Such rhetoric is not new—it reflects a longstanding U.S. policy of shielding itself and its allies from accountability, even as it selectively uses international law against its adversaries.
The ICC’s warrants are backed by the United Nations and the 125 states that are signatories to the Rome Statute. Yet, the U.S. response has been to threaten sanctions against the ICC and any country that enforces its ruling, demonstrating the extent of American hegemony over global institutions and the implicit racial hierarchy that shapes their function.
The U.S. and Israel: A Shield Against Accountability
The Biden administration, much like Trump before it, has dismissed the ICC’s actions outright, calling the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant “outrageous.” This echoes Trump’s 2020 executive order imposing sanctions on ICC officials, claiming that the court was engaging in “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel.”
This pattern of undermining international law to protect Israel has been evident for decades:
- The U.S. has used its veto power in the UN Security Council 48 times since the 1970s to shield Israel from censure, including four times since October 2023 alone.
- The U.S. has threatened to defund the UN over its criticism of Israel.
- The Biden administration rejected Amnesty International’s 2022 report declaring Israel’s actions in Gaza a form of apartheid, dismissing it outright.
The fear among U.S. policymakers is clear: holding Israel accountable could set a precedent for prosecuting American officials and military personnel for their own war crimes, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. This fear was reinforced when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in 2023 that Israel’s actions in Gaza “could amount to genocide.”
The Structural Limitations of the ICC: Who Is Held Accountable?
The ICC was established in 2002 under the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. However, its ability to deliver justice has been systematically undermined by major powers—especially the U.S., Russia, and Israel, which have refused to ratify the statute, rendering them effectively beyond its jurisdiction.
This refusal exposes a fundamental contradiction: the ICC claims to uphold universal justice, yet its most egregious perpetrators remain immune due to geopolitical dominance.
Senator Graham’s words capture the essence of this post-World War II international order: it was not designed to hold Western powers accountable, but rather to cement their supremacy while selectively punishing others.
Graham went further, threatening sanctions against any U.S. allies—Canada, Britain, Germany, and France—that dare to cooperate with the ICC. This move exemplifies the lengths to which the U.S. will go to protect its allies from scrutiny while wielding international institutions as instruments of control.
This hypocrisy was on full display in March 2023, when the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over war crimes in Ukraine. At the time, President Biden praised the move as “justified” and “making a strong point”—even while acknowledging that the U.S. does not recognize the ICC’s authority.
The court’s latest decision to pursue Israeli leaders marks a shift, suggesting a growing willingness to challenge impunity among Western-aligned nations. However, its effectiveness remains severely constrained by the reality that enforcement relies on state cooperation.
Since Israel and its closest allies refuse to recognize the court’s jurisdiction, the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant remain largely symbolic—a moral condemnation rather than an actionable legal measure.
European Compliance vs. Defiance: The West’s Double Standard
The ICC’s latest ruling has also revealed fractures within Europe, exposing a divide between nations willing to uphold international law and those that prioritize political expediency.
While Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Spain have pledged to enforce the ICC’s arrest warrants, other European nations have actively ignored or undermined the ruling:
- Poland allowed Netanyahu to visit Auschwitz without consequence, openly defying the ICC.
- Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, called the ICC’s decision “completely absurd” and vowed to ensure Netanyahu could visit Germany safely.
- The UK and France have remained noncommittal, seemingly reluctant to challenge U.S. pressure.
This selective application of justice further weakens the credibility of the ICC and raises fundamental questions about its legitimacy. If the world’s most powerful actors are shielded from prosecution, then can the court truly function as an instrument of global justice?
The ICC has long faced criticism for its disproportionate focus on African leaders, prosecuting figures such as Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, Ivory Coast’s Laurent Gbagbo, and Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta while Western leaders responsible for war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine remain untouched.
The court’s handling of Netanyahu’s case will test whether this dynamic is beginning to shift, or whether international justice remains a tool of neo-colonial enforcement rather than a universal system.
Beyond the ICC: A Fracturing Global Order
In his book Divided World: Development and Violence, Randall Williams critiques human rights as an ideological tool that aligns with U.S. imperial interests rather than an objective force for justice. He argues that the international system, shaped in the aftermath of WWII, has primarily served American expansionism rather than genuine accountability.
The ICC’s decision to pursue Israel’s leadership—alongside South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ—suggests an emerging rupture in this hierarchy. The world is increasingly rejecting the impunity long granted to Israel and its benefactors, as the Global South leads the charge for justice and accountability.
There are even rumors that the ICC may investigate President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken for complicity in Israeli war crimes—a sign that the cracks in this system are widening faster than Washington anticipated.
The fundamental question now is:
- Will these fractures expand into a true dismantling of the structures that have long shielded imperial violence?
- Or will U.S. hegemony and Western exceptionalism once again reassert control over international justice?
Regardless of how the ICC ruling unfolds, one thing is clear:
The fight for justice in Palestine does not rest with institutions alone—it depends on movements and voices demanding a world beyond U.S. exceptionalism and empty human rights rhetoric.
Read more here.
