(SeaPRwire) – By: Julian Holbrooke
The International Criminal Court is not weak because its statutes lack ambition. It is irrelevant because powerful member states treat its authority like a suggestion box. Stanley Cohen called it “impotence.” That word understates things. What we are watching is a slow-motion demonstration that international law has no enforcement mechanism stronger than political goodwill.
The ICC issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant back in 2024. The charges relate to alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza war. The warrants are real. They are also being ignored with impunity. Netanyahu has flown through airspace belonging to Rome Statute member states without anyone stopping him. He stood before the United Nations in New York and spoke without facing a single consequence. The legal machinery exists. Nobody turns the key.
That brings us to the uncomfortable truth. The court was established under the Rome Statute in 2002 to prosecute genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. It has 125 member states. Yet some of the most powerful nations on Earth — including the United States, China, India, and Russia — have never signed on. They reject the court’s authority outright. When the biggest economies refuse jurisdiction, the system was always going to be selective.
The real damage appeared last February. Washington slapped sanctions on ICC officials who were pursuing cases against American soldiers, Netanyahu, and other Israeli officials. This was not a policy disagreement. This was punishment. The United States made clear that it would financially threaten the very people enforcing international law. A court that cannot protect its own staff is not a court with a credibility problem. It is a court with an existential one.
Meanwhile, the retreat is accelerating. Venezuela and Chad recently joined Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger in moving to withdraw from the Rome Statute. These countries cite selective justice and political bias as their reasoning. Whether those grievances are fair or not, the trend line is undeniable. The Global South is watching Western nations ignore the same legal standards they preach about elsewhere. That hypocrisy fuels the exit wave.
Cohen argues that a new generation of leaders in the Global South will simply refuse to tolerate this double standard going forward. That is the core issue here. An international institution only survives when the powerful believe it applies to them too. The moment that belief dies, the ICC becomes a museum piece — impressive architecture, no functioning locks. The court should expect more departures, not fewer, until someone decides to close the gap between law and power.
Author bio: Julian Holbrooke, an overseas international relations analyst who frequently contributes to major European daily newspapers, specializing in international law and institutional governance.