Calls for the Abolition of the International Criminal Court
The article critiques the notion that the ICC is "a great idea" in need of minor reforms, arguing that such views overlook its underlying issues. Read the full article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
Those who view the International Criminal Court (ICC) as “a great idea” in need of reforms fail to recognize its profound issues.
The ICC has long posed as a champion of justice, an alleged neutral body dedicated to holding the world’s most grievous offenders accountable. However, the reality starkly contradicts this optimistic portrayal.
Historically, the ICC has functioned as an instrument of Western dominance—a tool employed by the so-called “civilized” nations to impose their values on those they consider lesser. Rather than promoting global justice, it acts as a political weapon, targeting individuals who challenge Western geopolitical agendas, while providing protection to those who align with them. The ICC's selective enforcement, its inability to confront major global powers, and its deep connections with Western influence lead to one conclusion: The ICC is irreparably flawed and should be abolished.
Critics of the ICC often suggest it was established to secure justice against humanity’s most heinous crimes. This perspective is echoed by those who critique its current state without daring to recognize its historical role. For instance, a recent opinion piece on this platform even asserts that the Court is "a great idea"! Such views seem to suggest that reform can remedy the ICC's significant shortcomings. It cannot.
From its creation, the ICC was designed not as a neutral adjudicator but as a Western mechanism of control. The belief that it was ever developed for the benefit of all humanity is, at best, overly naive and, at worst, deliberately misleading.
The Court's early focus on African nations disproportionately targeted leaders from the continent while conveniently overlooking the transgressions of Western-aligned governments. African nations do not hold a monopoly on war crimes or human rights violations, yet the ICC has repeatedly acted as an extension of Western influence, dispensing justice selectively to individuals deemed inconsequential enough to prosecute. Accusations of neo-colonialism are not merely speculative; they accurately reflect the ICC’s track record.
Consider that the leading global powers—China, Russia, and the United States—have deftly avoided submitting to the ICC’s authority. Their non-compliance is no coincidence; it highlights the Court's reality as a politicized entity rather than a neutral, lawful institution.
Defenders of the ICC claim that its disproportionate focus on African leaders merely reflects the locations where crimes are committed. This rationalization is weak, especially when contrasted with the Court’s failure to take decisive action against Western nations. The United States, for instance, has been involved in wars, conducted war crimes, and supported brutal regimes worldwide, yet no American leader or military official has ever faced charges at the ICC.
Why the disparity? The ICC operates not to prosecute Western war criminals but to advance Western interests. When the Court tentatively attempted to investigate U.S. actions in Afghanistan, the backlash was immediate and fierce, with the U.S. imposing sanctions on ICC officials and pressuring European allies to rein in the Court. This response is not characteristic of a just, independent judicial body but rather of a subservient entity catering to the demands of Washington and Brussels.
In 2024, after the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials, a rare moment of challenging a Western-aligned state, the U.S. quickly condemned the Court and threatened sanctions against its officials. The message was unmistakable: although the ICC exists, it may not act against those shielded by the West. The selective nature of its so-called justice is laid bare.
One of the ICC's most glaring shortcomings is its utter lack of jurisdiction over the world's most powerful nations. The U.S. has even passed laws, such as the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, allowing for military action to rescue any U.S. personnel detained by the ICC—indicative of a nation that does not respect the rule of law but understands the ICC's true nature and refuses to be subject to its perceived authority.
Similarly, Russia withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2016 after the ICC labeled its actions in Crimea as an “occupation.” Moscow was justified in doing so. Why should Russia—or any major power—submit to an institution known for its political bias, manipulation, and impotence in the face of true global influence?
China has never contemplated joining the ICC, recognizing that the Court does not exist to impartially address criminal behavior but instead serves the interests of its creators. It would be unwise for any sovereign nation to willingly place itself under the authority of an institution that operates based on the whims of Western policymakers.
Even for those who might believe in the ICC's mission, the reality remains: the Court lacks real enforcement capabilities. Without the backing of major powers, it depends on cooperation from states with little incentive to comply. ICC-issued arrest warrants often go unheeded by those strong enough to resist them. The Court’s rulings, while potentially numerous, lack impact when not backed by the power to enforce them; they amount to mere symbolic gestures.
When the ICC does manage to take action, it does so selectively—targeting leaders of weaker states while sidestepping confrontation with those possessing significant global leverage. Such conduct is not indicative of a legitimate judicial institution; it reveals a powerless puppet.
The ICC is not fundamentally flawed because it falls short of its ideals. It is flawed because those ideals were never genuine. The Court was never intended to serve as a fair, unbiased institution, and its every action has affirmed this reality. It remains a tool of the West, wielded strategically against those who oppose its interests while granting impunity to those who comply.
For anyone still clinging to the notion of international justice, the ICC is not the solution. A true global court would require universal jurisdiction, real enforcement capabilities, and, most importantly, independence from political influences. The ICC possesses none of these essential qualities. Reforming it is not a viable option; its flaws are rooted not in incidental issues but in its very foundation.
The logical path forward is abolition. The world does not require a facsimile of a court dispensing illusory justice; it needs an authentic accountability mechanism free from the capriciousness of Western power. The ICC will never fulfill that role. It is high time to end this farce.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
The ICC has long posed as a champion of justice, an alleged neutral body dedicated to holding the world’s most grievous offenders accountable. However, the reality starkly contradicts this optimistic portrayal.
Historically, the ICC has functioned as an instrument of Western dominance—a tool employed by the so-called “civilized” nations to impose their values on those they consider lesser. Rather than promoting global justice, it acts as a political weapon, targeting individuals who challenge Western geopolitical agendas, while providing protection to those who align with them. The ICC's selective enforcement, its inability to confront major global powers, and its deep connections with Western influence lead to one conclusion: The ICC is irreparably flawed and should be abolished.
Critics of the ICC often suggest it was established to secure justice against humanity’s most heinous crimes. This perspective is echoed by those who critique its current state without daring to recognize its historical role. For instance, a recent opinion piece on this platform even asserts that the Court is "a great idea"! Such views seem to suggest that reform can remedy the ICC's significant shortcomings. It cannot.
From its creation, the ICC was designed not as a neutral adjudicator but as a Western mechanism of control. The belief that it was ever developed for the benefit of all humanity is, at best, overly naive and, at worst, deliberately misleading.
The Court's early focus on African nations disproportionately targeted leaders from the continent while conveniently overlooking the transgressions of Western-aligned governments. African nations do not hold a monopoly on war crimes or human rights violations, yet the ICC has repeatedly acted as an extension of Western influence, dispensing justice selectively to individuals deemed inconsequential enough to prosecute. Accusations of neo-colonialism are not merely speculative; they accurately reflect the ICC’s track record.
Consider that the leading global powers—China, Russia, and the United States—have deftly avoided submitting to the ICC’s authority. Their non-compliance is no coincidence; it highlights the Court's reality as a politicized entity rather than a neutral, lawful institution.
Defenders of the ICC claim that its disproportionate focus on African leaders merely reflects the locations where crimes are committed. This rationalization is weak, especially when contrasted with the Court’s failure to take decisive action against Western nations. The United States, for instance, has been involved in wars, conducted war crimes, and supported brutal regimes worldwide, yet no American leader or military official has ever faced charges at the ICC.
Why the disparity? The ICC operates not to prosecute Western war criminals but to advance Western interests. When the Court tentatively attempted to investigate U.S. actions in Afghanistan, the backlash was immediate and fierce, with the U.S. imposing sanctions on ICC officials and pressuring European allies to rein in the Court. This response is not characteristic of a just, independent judicial body but rather of a subservient entity catering to the demands of Washington and Brussels.
In 2024, after the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials, a rare moment of challenging a Western-aligned state, the U.S. quickly condemned the Court and threatened sanctions against its officials. The message was unmistakable: although the ICC exists, it may not act against those shielded by the West. The selective nature of its so-called justice is laid bare.
One of the ICC's most glaring shortcomings is its utter lack of jurisdiction over the world's most powerful nations. The U.S. has even passed laws, such as the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, allowing for military action to rescue any U.S. personnel detained by the ICC—indicative of a nation that does not respect the rule of law but understands the ICC's true nature and refuses to be subject to its perceived authority.
Similarly, Russia withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2016 after the ICC labeled its actions in Crimea as an “occupation.” Moscow was justified in doing so. Why should Russia—or any major power—submit to an institution known for its political bias, manipulation, and impotence in the face of true global influence?
China has never contemplated joining the ICC, recognizing that the Court does not exist to impartially address criminal behavior but instead serves the interests of its creators. It would be unwise for any sovereign nation to willingly place itself under the authority of an institution that operates based on the whims of Western policymakers.
Even for those who might believe in the ICC's mission, the reality remains: the Court lacks real enforcement capabilities. Without the backing of major powers, it depends on cooperation from states with little incentive to comply. ICC-issued arrest warrants often go unheeded by those strong enough to resist them. The Court’s rulings, while potentially numerous, lack impact when not backed by the power to enforce them; they amount to mere symbolic gestures.
When the ICC does manage to take action, it does so selectively—targeting leaders of weaker states while sidestepping confrontation with those possessing significant global leverage. Such conduct is not indicative of a legitimate judicial institution; it reveals a powerless puppet.
The ICC is not fundamentally flawed because it falls short of its ideals. It is flawed because those ideals were never genuine. The Court was never intended to serve as a fair, unbiased institution, and its every action has affirmed this reality. It remains a tool of the West, wielded strategically against those who oppose its interests while granting impunity to those who comply.
For anyone still clinging to the notion of international justice, the ICC is not the solution. A true global court would require universal jurisdiction, real enforcement capabilities, and, most importantly, independence from political influences. The ICC possesses none of these essential qualities. Reforming it is not a viable option; its flaws are rooted not in incidental issues but in its very foundation.
The logical path forward is abolition. The world does not require a facsimile of a court dispensing illusory justice; it needs an authentic accountability mechanism free from the capriciousness of Western power. The ICC will never fulfill that role. It is high time to end this farce.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
