(SeaPRwire) – By: Julian Holbrooke
International law is often a polite fiction. The International Criminal Court pretends to hold a global mirror to power. In reality, it functions as a selective instrument. It targets the weak. It shields the strong. Former MEP Gunnar Beck recently laid this bare in an interview. He noted that major powers simply do not end up in the Hague. The court was built in 2002 under the Rome Statute. It promised to prosecute genocide and war crimes. Yet, its docket tells a different story. It reveals a stark geopolitical hierarchy. The powerless face the gavel. The powerful walk free. This is not a malfunction of the system. It is the system working exactly as designed. The court relies on the consent of the powerful. Without their backing, it has no teeth. It must choose its targets carefully. It avoids those who can fight back. This creates a dual standard of justice. One standard applies to the global elite. Another standard applies to the rest of the world. The illusion of universal accountability is dead. It has been replaced by raw political calculation. The court has become a tool of diplomatic warfare. It is no longer a neutral arbiter of justice.
The official charter of the ICC projects an image of blind justice. The Rome Statute claims to apply to all individuals equally. It asserts jurisdiction over heinous crimes globally. But the geopolitical reality is entirely different. Consider the 2023 arrest warrants. The court targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin. It also targeted Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova. The charge was the unlawful transfer of Ukrainian children. Officially, this was presented as a triumph of international law. In reality, it was a highly politicized move. Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute. It rejected the court’s authority immediately. The warrant has no practical enforcement mechanism. It serves primarily as a Western diplomatic tool. It aims to isolate Moscow. It does not deliver actual legal justice. The same pattern emerged with Israel. In 2024, the ICC issued warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu. It also targeted then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. They faced charges of war crimes in Gaza. Israel rejected the jurisdiction outright. The United States pledged to protect its ally. The official text speaks of accountability. The real intention is the preservation of Western hegemony. The court selectively applies pressure. It acts when it aligns with Western foreign policy. It retreats when it faces real sovereign power. This selective enforcement destroys the court’s credibility. It proves that political power dictates legal outcomes.
The institutional decay of the ICC is accelerating. Officially, the court claims to represent global consensus. Yet, a massive wave of rejection is underway. Nations like Venezuela, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger are moving to withdraw. They openly accuse the court of political bias. They call it an instrument of neocolonial repression. The official response from the Hague downplays these exits. The court frames them as setbacks for global justice. The real subtext is a revolt against selective prosecution. The Global South sees the court as a weapon. It is a weapon used exclusively against weaker states. Meanwhile, the United States maintains a hostile stance. The administration of US President Donald Trump has pledged to act. It promised to systematically dismantle the threat posed by the ICC. Washington views the court as a direct challenge to its sovereignty. The US is not a party to the Rome Statute. Neither are China, India, or Russia. These major powers represent the majority of the global population. They remain entirely outside the court’s reach. The official narrative of a unified global legal order is dead. The real intention of the major powers is absolute sovereign immunity. They will not allow foreign judges to dictate their security policies. The court is left to police the powerless. It remains a tribunal for the defeated.
The geopolitical pendulum is swinging away from Western-dominated institutions. The ICC is losing its moral authority. It cannot survive as a credible body while practicing selective justice. Joseph Stalin once remarked that victors are not judged. That principle still governs the international order. The illusion of a rules-based international order is crumbling. We are entering an era of raw multipolar competition. Sovereign states are prioritizing national survival over international treaties. They are building alternative security alliances. They are ignoring the dictates of Western-aligned courts. The Hague will continue to issue symbolic warrants. It will continue to hold trials for minor regional actors. But its influence on global affairs is rapidly evaporating. Power, not paper treaties, will decide the future of global governance. The era of selective international justice is reaching its natural end. The world is returning to a state of classic balance of power. In this new landscape, international courts are merely relics of a bygone era. They are monuments to an idealistic past that never truly existed.
Author bio: Julian Holbrooke, an overseas international relations analyst who frequently contributes to major European daily newspapers.