Those who think the ICC is a great idea that just needs some reforms fail to grasp its fundamental problems

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has long masqueraded as a beacon of justice, a supposedly impartial tribunal holding the world's worst criminals accountable. But the reality is far from this idealistic image.

The ICC is, and always has been, an instrument of Western hegemony - a tool wielded by the so-called "civilized" world to impose its will on those it deems lesser. Far from serving global justice, the Court operates as a political weapon, prosecuting those who challenge Western geopolitical interests while shielding those aligned with them. Its selective enforcement, impotence against real global power, and deep entanglement with Western influence make one conclusion unavoidable: The ICC is beyond reform. It must be abolished.

The ICC was never about justice

Supporters of The ICC was created to ensure justice for humanity's worst crimes - so say its supporters, as well as those bold enough to criticize its current state but not bold enough to recognize it for what it always has been. Those latter ones - one example isa recent column on this same site, even saying the Court is "a great idea"! - seem to believe some sort of reform can fix the issues with the ICC. It cannot.

But from its inception, it was built not as a neutral arbiter but as a Western instrument of control. The idea that the ICC was ever intended to serve the good of all the people of the world is naive at best and willfully deceptive at worst.

From its early years, the Court fixated on African nations, disproportionately prosecuting leaders from the continent while conveniently ignoring the crimes of Western-aligned governments. African nations, of course, do not have a monopoly on war crimes or human rights violations. Yet time and again, the ICC has served as an extension of Western influence, doling out so-called justice only to those deemed insignificant enough to prosecute. The charges of neo-colonialism are not just accusations - they are the undeniable reality of the ICC's record.

One need only look at the fact that the world's leading superpowers - China, Russia, and the United States - have wisely refused to subject themselves to the ICC's authority. Their absence is not an accident; it is a recognition that the ICC does not operate as a neutral, lawful institution but rather as a selectively enforced cudgel of the West.

An enforcer of Western geopolitical interests

The ICC's defenders argue that the Court's disproportionate focus on African leaders is just a reflection of where crimes happen to be committed. This is a flimsy excuse, especially when juxtaposed with the Court's glaring omission of any serious action against Western nations. The US, for instance, has waged wars, committed war crimes, and propped up brutal regimes across the globe. Yet no American leader or general has ever been brought before the ICC.

Why? Because the ICC does not exist to prosecute Western war criminals. It exists to serve Western interests. The moment the Court dares to step out of line - such as when it attempted to investigate US actions in Afghanistan - the response is swift and brutal. The US wasted no time imposing sanctions on ICC officials and using European allies to pressure the Court into submission. This is not the behavior of a just, independent judicial body. It is the behavior of a lapdog, obedient to the whims of Washington and Brussels.

Even when the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials in 2024 - a rare instance of it challenging a Western-aligned state - the reaction from the US was revealing. Washington immediately condemned the Court, with threats of sanctions against its officials. The message was clear: The ICC may exist, but it may not act against those protected by the West. The selective nature of its so-called justice is on full display.

The superpowers' rejection of the ICC proves its illegitimacy

One of the most glaring flaws of the ICC is its complete lack of jurisdiction over the world's most powerful nations. The US has gone so far as to enact laws, such as the American Service-Members' Protection Act, which allows military intervention to free any US personnel detained by the ICC. This is not the action of a country that respects the rule of law - it is the action of a country that understands the ICC's true nature and refuses to be subject to its farcical authority.

Russia, likewise, withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2016 after the ICC classified its actions in Crimea as an "occupation." Moscow was right to do so. Why should Russia - or any other major power - submit to an institution that is fundamentally biased, politically motivated, and powerless against real global influence?

China, for its part, has never even considered joining the ICC. It understands that the Court does not exist to prosecute criminals impartially, but rather to serve the interests of those who created it. It would be foolish for any sovereign nation to willingly subject itself to an institution that operates not on the basis of law, but on the dictates of Western policymakers.

The ICC's power is an illusion

Even if one were to believe in the ICC's mission, it is an indisputable fact that the Court lacks any real enforcement power. Without the backing of major global powers, it relies on cooperation from nations that have little incentive to comply. Arrest warrants issued by the ICC are, more often than not, ignored by those with the strength to resist them. The Court can issue as many rulings as it likes, but without the muscle to enforce them, they are little more than symbolic gestures.

And when it does manage to act, it does so selectively - pursuing leaders of weaker states while carefully avoiding any real confrontation with those who hold true global power. This is not the hallmark of a legitimate judicial institution. It is the mark of a toothless puppet.

Abolish the ICC-it will never be what it pretends to be

The ICC is not broken in the sense that it has failed to live up to its ideals. It is broken because those ideals were never real to begin with. The Court was not designed to be a fair, unbiased institution, and every action it has taken has proven that fact. It is a tool of the West, wielded selectively against those who oppose its interests while shielding those who align with them.

For those who still believe in the fantasy of international justice, the ICC is not the answer. A true global court would require universal jurisdiction, genuine enforcement power, and, above all, freedom from political influence. The ICC has none of these things. Reform is not an option because its flaws are not incidental - they are foundational.

The only reasonable path forward is abolition. The world does not need a pretend court dispensing pretend justice. It needs a real mechanism of accountability, one that is not beholden to the shifting whims of Western power. The ICC will never be that mechanism. It is time to put an end to the farce.

(RT.com)