Justice Denied: Why Powerful Nations Never Face The ICC

AUTHOR: MANASI KULKARNI

“The ICC: Where law kneels to politics, and victims are just geography.”

WASN’T JUSTICE SUPPOSED TO BE GLOBAL?

The International Criminal Court was born from horror—but promised hope.

Created by the Rome Statute in 1998 and activated on July 1, 2002, it was meant to be the world’s first permanent court to prosecute genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and (since 2018) the crime of aggression . It was designed as a court of last resort—to step in only when nations failed to act .

The vision was righteous: “not replacement, but complementarity”—a symbol that inhumanity would no longer hide under flags or diplomatic immunity. A court to make perpetrators accountable and victims heard .

But now look at the roster: 71 individuals have been indicted—yet nearly all are from African or weak states; no one from a powerful nation has ever been prosecuted . A court meant to be global now looks like a microscope focused only on the powerless.

Justice delayed is a tragedy. Justice selective? That’s betrayal.

A COURT WITH A BLINDSIDE: WHY ONLY THE WEAK ARE PROSECUTED

The ICC isn’t just selective—it’s predictably biased.

71 individuals indicted—but almost all are from Africa. From Bashir (Sudan), Lubanga (DRC), Gbagbo (Ivory Coast) to Ruto and Kenyatta (Kenya) — every single high-profile case targets leaders from powerless nations .

No dictators, no generals from the U.S., Russia, or China—only poor countries are made examples of.

African governments are furious. The African Union has demanded withdrawal, calling the ICC a tool of neo-colonialism. Zimbabwe, Burundi, and South Africa have all threatened defection . Kenyan leaders labeled the court “biased,” accusing it of treating Africa like a toddler to be scolded .
Even deeply flawed cases collapsed—Kenyatta and Ruto were dropped, and Bemba’s convictions later overturned . Despite this, grand cases against powerful nations never start.

A court that only punishes the powerless isn’t justice. It’s selective vengeance. It uses the guise of legality to write a global ledger where only the weak are recorded—and the strong stay hidden.

WHEN THE POWERFUL WALK FREE: ICC IGNORES THE GIANTS

The International Criminal Court isn’t just selective—it’s evasive when faced with real power.

Afghanistan (2003–2020): The ICC prosecutor sought to investigate atrocities by U.S. troops and the CIA—but the judges refused, citing lack of cooperation, budget issues, and political fears. The U.S. had already sanctioned ICC officials and revoked the prosecutor’s visa .

The U.S. Factor: Even when the prospect of accountability edged closer, the ICC backed down—deprioritizing U.S. cases in favor of prosecuting the Taliban and IS .

Israel and Palestine: ICC investigations into Gaza atrocities are hampered by Israel’s non-membership and U.S. political pushback—meaning powerful allies stay shielded .

Russia: In 2023, the ICC dared to issue an arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes in Ukraine. But Putin then traveled freely in ICC territory—most recently in Mongolia—without consequence .

The U.S. Resistance: The 2002 UN Security Council resolution granting immunity to U.S. peacekeepers and Trump-era ICC sanctions show how hard power trumps international law .

Justice that cowers before global powers is not justice—it’s a game rigged by immunity and influence, where the weak are charged and the strong stay hidden

WHERE IS AFRICA’S VOICE? OR IS IT JUST AFRICA’S BURDEN?

The ICC says it was built to serve justice beyond borders — but its vision seems to stop at the shores of the African continent.

Since its inception, the ICC has investigated 31 cases, and guess what? Over two-thirds have targeted African nations. Uganda, Kenya, DRC, Sudan, Mali, Central African Republic — the list goes on. Why does it feel like the only war crimes that matter to the ICC are the ones committed by Black bodies on Black soil?

Take Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir — indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Darfur. Yet when he traveled to ICC member states like South Africa (2015) or Chad (2013), no one arrested him. Why? Because these states argued something powerful: the ICC speaks justice, but acts politics.

Meanwhile, leaders from Western countries — with equal or worse records — roam freely without a single warrant, a single trial, a single statement. Where is Tony Blair’s trial for the Iraq War? Where are the charges against George W. Bush for authorizing torture? Where is accountability for France’s involvement in Rwanda?

African nations have started pulling out. Burundi formally withdrew in 2017. South Africa threatened to leave. Kenya called the ICC a “tool of neo-colonialism.” Can you blame them?

The ICC was meant to protect the voiceless — but it has become a courtroom that only hears one kind of cry. Justice should not wear the blindfold of geopolitical convenience. Justice is supposed to be blind — not selectively deaf.

REMEDIES, REFORMS, AND THE ICC THAT COULD BE — BUT STILL ISN’T.

The International Criminal Court was never supposed to become a puppet. It was supposed to be the hand that rises when no one else will. The Rome Statute, signed in 1998, envisioned a world where genocides, war crimes, and crimes against humanity wouldn’t go unanswered — regardless of who committed them.

But what use is a statute that even superpowers refuse to sign?

The United States, Russia, India, and China — four of the biggest players in world politics — have not ratified the Rome Statute. The very nations with the power to either ignite or extinguish war have no legal obligation to the ICC.

And so, the Court remains toothless when it comes to powerful nations, and ruthless when it comes to powerless ones.

So, what needs to change?

Universal Ratification or Rewriting the Statute: The Rome Statute must be either universally binding or renegotiated to reflect global equity. You cannot call yourself international when over 70 countries, including the most militarized ones, don’t answer to you.
Eliminate Prosecutorial Discretion Bias: The Office of the Prosecutor must function transparently and be held accountable to an independent oversight mechanism. No more cherry-picking cases from only the Global South.
Strengthen Complementarity: The ICC was designed to act only when national courts failed. So let’s empower local justice systems, offer funding, legal aid, and protection to whistleblowers and victims — so justice grows from within, not above.
Include Crimes of Economic Aggression: Why isn’t the Court prosecuting exploitative multinational corporations, resource theft, ecological genocide, or sanctions that starve entire populations? Justice must evolve. Modern crimes need modern accountability.

Because without these reforms, the ICC is not justice. It’s theatre. A courtroom for show, not a courtroom for truth.

VOICES THE COURT REFUSES TO HEAR: ONGOING CRIMES THE ICC WON’T TOUCH

The International Criminal Court was made to prevent impunity, but in reality, it has become an institution of selective memory. When it comes to ongoing atrocities committed by powerful nations, the ICC becomes suspiciously quiet — almost as if justice is blindfolded by politics, not principle.

United States: War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan: Despite credible evidence from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documenting torture, unlawful killings, and civilian bombings by U.S. forces during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the ICC has never indicted a single American official. In fact, in 2020, when the ICC tried to investigate U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on ICC officials — including then-Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. So much for an independent court.
Israel: Occupation, Bombings & Apartheid: In Gaza and the West Bank, the violence is relentless. Children die under airstrikes. Homes are bulldozed. Whole communities are erased. Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory has been called apartheid by the UN, Amnesty International, and even Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. Yet, the ICC drags its feet — citing “complex jurisdictional issues” — while the blood keeps spilling. When will Palestinian children be seen as human beings, not collateral?
Russia: Crimes in Ukraine and Beyond: The ICC did issue an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin for the forced deportation of Ukrainian children — a landmark move. But it conveniently forgets Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, and Russia’s brutal mercenary forces (like Wagner) acting across Africa. One warrant for optics doesn’t erase decades of ignored war crimes.
China: The Uyghur Genocide: Over a million Uyghur Muslims have reportedly been detained, tortured, or forced into re-education camps in Xinjiang. There is ample satellite evidence, testimonies from survivors, and reports of forced sterilization and religious persecution. But since China isn’t a signatory to the Rome Statute — the ICC claims it “can’t” intervene. Why then, does it claim universality? If mass sterilization and cultural erasure aren’t crimes against humanity, what are?

When smaller nations commit crimes, the ICC rushes in. When the mighty nations do, it files excuses. And in doing so, it tells the world: “We prosecute injustice — unless the injustice wears a suit and sits in a powerful capital.”

CONCLUSION: WHEN JUSTICE HAS A PASSPORT

Justice is not blind. It sees borders. It hears accents. It smells power.

The ICC was meant to speak for the voiceless. But it has become an echo chamber for Western diplomacy. It punishes the weak, pauses for the powerful, and pretends that politics isn’t seated at its bench. Where were its handcuffs when children were bombed in Gaza? Where was its outrage when Uyghurs disappeared into silence? Where was its courage when civilians were tortured in secret prisons, or when mercenaries killed under Russian flags?

It wasn’t missing. It was hiding.

The truth is, the ICC does not uphold international law — it performs it. And in this performance, genocide becomes paperwork, war crimes become headlines, and entire communities become case studies, not survivors.

If justice must come with conditions — with caveats, with signatures, with silence in the face of superpowers — then it isn’t justice at all. It’s theatre. AND WE ARE DONE APPLAUDING.

REFERENCES:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states

https://apnews.com/article/d879f4ea948193ffe82d7f06aca23547

https://www.government.nl/topics/international-peace-and-security/international-legal-order/the-international-criminal-court-icc

https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/international-centre-for-the-prosecution-of-the-crime-of-aggression-against-ukraine?

How the Court works

https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/explore/20-icc-benefits

https://www.american.edu/sis/news/20230907-prosecuting-hate-genocide-and-the-international-criminal-court.cfm

About the Court

https://www.reuters.com/world/icc-president-says-war-crimes-tribunal-is-jeopardy-2024-12-02

https://apnews.com/article/d4bad1fc14529f5cd50eb0963e88f8e5

The Role of the ICC | Council on Foreign Relations