America praised the ICC until it came for an ally

By the Editorial Team · Wednesday, September 2, 2026

The United States has intensified efforts to discredit and sanction the International Criminal Court after it issued arrest warrants against Israeli officials for alleged war crimes in Gaza. This move highlights concerns about selective enforcement of international law and threatens the ICC’s ability to hold powerful countries accountable.

For years, nations in the Global South have criticized Western powers for selectively enforcing international law and violating it to serve their interests. They point to the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) perceived erosion of credibility, citing numerous unresolved resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an example. While the UNSC’s authority has long been questioned, recent developments have shifted attention to another key institution of international justice: the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

Since Israel’s military operations in Gaza intensified, the United States has escalated its efforts to undermine the ICC, particularly after the court issued arrest warrants in 2024 against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The warrants allege potential war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. Rather than addressing the evidence or legal merits, Washington has launched a campaign to delegitimize the ICC, branding it an illegitimate entity that threatens U.S. sovereignty.

The U.S. response has included sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors, asset freezes, travel bans, and legal threats. Most recently, the U.S. Department of State directly sanctioned the court’s president. Washington’s criticism partly hinges on the ICC’s assertion of jurisdiction over nonmember states that have not ratified the Rome Statute. However, this stance contrasts with the U.S. reaction in 2023, when the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin for alleged unlawful deportations of Ukrainian children. At that time, American officials commended the court’s role in upholding accountability.

Observers note that the ICC’s foundational mandate has not changed between these cases. Rather, U.S. opposition appears to intensify only once the court targets actions taken by Israel in Gaza. The current U.S.-Israeli campaign to weaken the ICC raises concerns about the court’s ability to operate independently and hold powerful actors accountable.

This trend occurs amid broader patterns of selective international law enforcement. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was widely condemned as a violation of the principle prohibiting territorial acquisition by force. Yet, critics argue that Western powers’ responses have increasingly reflected geopolitical interests rather than consistent legal standards. For instance, in 2025, Israel and the United States conducted strikes on Iranian nuclear sites without UNSC authorization, invoking preemptive self-defense arguments that Western states had previously rejected in Russia’s case.

The ICC was established to transcend political influence and ensure that no leader or nation, regardless of power, is above the law. However, if it is perceived as targeting only weaker or adversarial states while shielding powerful allies, its legitimacy is at risk. Advocates argue that defending the ICC is critical for upholding the rule of law amid mounting global challenges in the coming decade.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.