Photo: Unsplash C-I2Ge7bLAhV4
By PeanutsChoice | Citizen of Europe
Justice on Trial: Why the ICC Still Matters
In a world increasingly cynical about international law, the International Criminal Court (ICC) remains one of the few institutions trying to hold individuals accountable for the world’s gravest crimes. It is not just a symbol of justice — it is a battleground where global power politics and moral principles collide.
Created after decades of war, genocide, and systematic crimes, the ICC is the first permanent international court designed to prosecute individuals — not states — for acts such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and, more recently, the crime of aggression. Its very existence reflects an aspiration to build a world where the powerful do not enjoy impunity, and where victims of atrocity are not forgotten.
But while the Court aspires to universality, its legitimacy remains under constant attack — not least by the very nations that helped create the legal architecture it represents.
From Nuremberg to The Hague: The ICC’s Origins
The idea of prosecuting individuals for international crimes first took shape after World War II, when Nazi leaders were tried in Nuremberg. Subsequent tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia set important precedents, but they were limited in scope and duration.
The ICC was born from a desire to make justice permanent and universal. Negotiations culminated in the 1998 Rome Statute, which entered into force in 2002. The Court, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, acts when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute serious crimes.
Despite its ambition, the ICC is not universally accepted. Its jurisdiction depends on treaty participation. Today, 125 countries are parties to the Rome Statute. Crucially, major powers such as the United States, Russia, and China are not members. Some have actively refused to ratify the treaty; others have withdrawn or suspended cooperation.
In early 2025, Hungary became the first European Union member state to announce its intention to withdraw from the Court. Citing concerns over sovereignty and alleged political bias, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government initiated the withdrawal process. However, under the Rome Statute, Hungary remains legally bound until at least mid-2026, pending formal completion of the process.
The U.S. and Russia: Justice, Selectively Applied
Though neither the United States nor Russia is a party to the ICC, both have used the Court when convenient — and undermined it when scrutiny turned inward.
In 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over alleged war crimes in Ukraine. Western capitals, especially Washington, welcomed the move. The Biden administration praised the Court, despite the fact that the U.S. has never ratified the Rome Statute and previously passed domestic legislation — colloquially known as the “Hague Invasion Act” — to prevent American citizens from being prosecuted by the ICC.
Russia’s reaction was predictably hostile. The Kremlin rejected the warrant and retaliated by issuing its own arrest orders for ICC judges. Yet, not long before, Moscow had supported ICC investigations into alleged war crimes in Georgia when it served Russian political interests. This selective engagement reveals the ICC’s vulnerability to geopolitical gamesmanship.
Similarly, the U.S. government has sanctioned ICC officials in the past, most notably during the Trump administration, in response to investigations into alleged American war crimes in Afghanistan. In 2025, some members of the U.S. Congress have renewed calls for punitive measures against ICC personnel after investigations into conflicts in Gaza began.
The ICC is respected by these powers only when it aligns with their interests. When it targets rivals, the Court gains support. When it threatens allies or nationals, it becomes a target itself.
When Can the ICC Prosecute?
The Court’s jurisdiction is limited. It can prosecute individuals only when crimes occur on the territory of a state party, when the accused is a national of a state party, or when the United Nations Security Council refers a situation to it. The latter mechanism is often blocked by veto powers such as the U.S. and Russia.
This limits the ICC’s reach, but it also reinforces its role as a court of last resort. The ICC does not act as a global police force; it steps in when national systems fail or refuse to act.
The ICC’s Record: Triumphs and Trials
The ICC’s record is mixed. Its supporters recognize the Court’s historic role in breaking new ground in international justice. Convictions such as those of Thomas Lubanga, who was found guilty of conscripting child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Jean-Pierre Bemba, convicted for war crimes in the Central African Republic, have sent powerful messages that atrocities will not go unpunished.
The Court also secured a landmark conviction for Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi, the first ever for the destruction of cultural heritage during conflict, showing the ICC’s evolving legal scope.
But these successes have come amid significant setbacks. High-profile cases against African leaders such as Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta have collapsed due to lack of evidence or witness interference, feeding perceptions of bias and selectivity. The ICC has struggled to enforce arrest warrants against figures like Omar al-Bashir of Sudan or Saif al-Islam Gaddafi of Libya, who have evaded justice despite being indicted.
Perhaps most troubling was the acquittal of former Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo, whose prolonged detention and eventual release raised questions about the Court’s efficiency and fairness.
The ICC’s dependence on state cooperation and its lack of an independent enforcement mechanism remain its Achilles’ heel.
Europe’s Responsibility
Europe has long been the political and financial backbone of the ICC. Most EU member states are parties to the Rome Statute, providing crucial support through funding, diplomacy, and legal expertise. The Court’s headquarters in The Hague further cements its symbolic and practical ties to Europe.
However, Hungary’s 2025 withdrawal attempt represents a dangerous challenge from within. If left unaddressed, it risks emboldening other populist governments skeptical of international institutions and could weaken Europe’s unified stance on international justice.
Europe’s defense of the ICC must be consistent and principled. Upholding international justice means holding not only adversaries but also allies accountable. It requires courage to stand firm when prosecutions become politically sensitive.
Why the ICC Still Matters
In an era where authoritarianism spreads and democratic norms are under siege, institutions like the ICC matter more than ever. They are imperfect, constrained, and often embattled. Yet they embody a crucial ideal: that no one should be above the law.
This idea remains fragile and under pressure but not dead — so long as states and citizens remain willing to defend it.
The ICC is not just a court. It is a symbol of hope, a challenge to impunity, and a cornerstone for a world that aspires to justice beyond power.
Sources
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ICC, icc-cpi.int
States Parties to the Rome Statute, ICC Registry, 2025
Hungary Announces ICC Withdrawal, Politico Europe, March 2025
ICC Arrest Warrant for Putin, The Guardian, March 2023
U.S. Sanctions on ICC Officials, U.S. State Department Archives
ICC Convictions and Cases, ICC Case Database
Kenya Cases and Criticisms, Al Jazeera, 2024
European Parliament Statement on ICC, July 2023
Disclaimer:
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis reflects the author’s interpretation of publicly available information as of the date of publication. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and related international legal matters are complex and evolving, subject to ongoing political and legal developments. Readers are encouraged to consult official sources and expert commentary for detailed guidance.
You may like: When Justice Is a Crime: The Global Backlash Against ICC Judges
About the Author
