On two separate fronts last week, the struggle over international justice revealed the deep contradictions of our times. In the United States, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of an executive order by President Donald Trump that had targeted individuals working with the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigating U.S. or allied personnel. Judge Nancy Torresen ruled that the order violated the constitutional right to free speech, thereby protecting the rights of two human rights advocates who challenged the decree.

Meanwhile, in The Hague, the ICC dismissed Israel’s plea to cancel arrest warrants issued against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, confirming that the investigation into alleged war crimes in Gaza would proceed. 

These parallel rulings highlight both the promise and the limitations of international justice in a divided world. One judgment defends the freedom to cooperate with an international institution; the other reinforces the ICC’s commitment to pursue accountability—even against powerful state leaders. Yet these decisions also reveal a bitter truth: the international justice system is upheld and opposed by the same nations that claim to champion the rule of law.

The Rise and Struggles of the ICC

Founded in 2002 through the adoption of the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was envisaged as a permanent and impartial institution dedicated to holding individuals accountable for the most severe international crimes—namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. Its core ambition was to ensure that even the most powerful would not be immune to justice when national systems failed to act.

Currently, 125 countries are Parties to the Rome Statute, spanning most of Europe, Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia-Pacific. Africa alone accounts for 33 members. However, the absence of several major world powers from this list is not by chance—it reflects deeper geopolitical calculations and scepticism toward the Court’s authority.

A number of influential nations have deliberately chosen not to join the ICC or have withdrawn their participation. Countries like the United States, Russia, China, India, Israel, and Indonesia have remained outside its........

© Eurasia Review