For years, countries in the Global South have criticized what they see as selective application of international law by Western powers, highlighting the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a prime example. Many argue that the UN Security Council has become ineffective, its resolutions on Israeli occupation largely unenforced due to the dominance of powerful member states. However, recent developments have shifted the focus from the Security Council to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, raising new questions about the future of international justice.

Since the ICC issued arrest warrants in 2024 against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to actions in Gaza, the United States has responded with unprecedented hostility toward the court. Unlike its previous stance on war crimes allegations involving other nations, the U.S. government has not challenged the ICC's evidence. Instead, it has launched a campaign to delegitimize the institution, labeling it a threat to American sovereignty and seeking to weaken its authority.

Actions taken by the U.S. include sanctioning ICC judges and prosecutors, freezing their assets, and imposing travel bans. Most notably, the U.S. State Department has sanctioned the ICC’s president. One of the central U.S. grievances is that the court claims jurisdiction over nonmember states that have not ratified the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. This criticism contrasts sharply with the U.S. reaction in 2023 when the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over allegations of unlawfully deporting Ukrainian children. At that time, American officials praised the warrant as a legitimate means of ensuring accountability. The court’s mandate has not changed; rather, the difference lies in the nationalities of the individuals targeted.

Observers note that this selective approach undermines the ICC’s founding principle: enforcing accountability regardless of power or political alliances. The United States and Israel’s efforts to discredit the court come amid broader international legal tensions. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, widely condemned as a violation of international law, was met with strong rebuke from Western states. Yet, in 2025, Israel and the U.S. conducted strikes on Iranian nuclear sites without Security Council authorization, justifying the actions under the contentious principle of preemptive self-defense—an argument Western countries previously rejected in condemning Russia’s territorial aggression.

The ICC was established to bypass political interference by powerful states, but critics argue it increasingly targets only weaker countries or those at odds with the West. The current disputes over the ICC highlight a deeper struggle over the survival of the international rule of law. Defending the court, despite its imperfections, is seen by many as a critical test of global justice in this decade.