The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to prosecute individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. However, since its inception, the court has faced mounting criticism for its alleged double standards, particularly its disproportionate focus on leaders from the Global South, especially Africa, while ignoring crimes committed by powerful Western nations. This selective justice raises questions about the ICC's credibility and whether it serves as a tool of global justice or political control.
A Court Targeting Africa?
One of the most glaring criticisms against the ICC is its overwhelming focus on African leaders. Since its establishment in 2002, the ICC has launched investigations and trials predominantly against African figures. High-profile cases include Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, Kenya's Uhuru Kenyatta, the Democratic Republic of Congo's Thomas Lubanga, and Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo. Meanwhile, leaders from Western countries accused of similar or worse crimes remain untouched.
This bias has fueled accusations that the ICC is a neo-colonial institution, reinforcing Western dominance rather than upholding impartial justice. African nations have grown increasingly frustrated, with some countries, such as South Africa and Burundi, even threatening to withdraw from the court. In 2017, the African Union openly called for a mass withdrawal from the ICC, arguing that it unfairly targets African leaders while ignoring Western political and military figures.
Turning a Blind Eye to Western War Crimes
While African leaders have been subjected to ICC scrutiny, Western leaders responsible for devastating wars and interventions have largely escaped accountability. The United States, for instance, has led military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, where reports of war crimes, torture, and civilian massacres are well-documented. Yet, the ICC has failed to prosecute any U.S. officials for war crimes.
In 2020, the ICC announced an investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, including torture and unlawful killings. However, after immense political and economic pressure from Washington--including sanctions against ICC officials--the court dropped the case. This decision reinforced the perception that the ICC bows to powerful nations while aggressively pursuing weaker states.
Similarly, the ICC has done little to hold European nations accountable for their roles in military interventions that resulted in mass civilian casualties. The NATO-led war in Libya, which resulted in the destabilization of the country and the rise of human trafficking networks, has not led to a single ICC indictment. The UK's involvement in war crimes in Iraq, including reports of systematic torture and extrajudicial killings, has also been ignored by the court.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Another Example of Selective Justice
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The ICC has also faced criticism over its handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite repeated calls for an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, the ICC has been slow to act. Meanwhile, Palestinian officials have been subjected to scrutiny, reinforcing the perception that the ICC applies justice selectively.
Israel, backed by Western allies, has consistently lobbied against ICC investigations. While the court has taken steps to examine Israeli actions, no significant indictments have been made, further demonstrating how political pressure can influence ICC proceedings.
Conclusion: Justice or Geopolitics?
The ICC's selective prosecution record undermines its credibility as a truly impartial international court. If it continues to target only leaders from the Global South while ignoring the crimes of powerful Western nations, it risks becoming a tool of political influence rather than a guardian of global justice.
For the ICC to restore its legitimacy, it must demonstrate that no individual--regardless of nationality or political connections--is above the law. Until then, it will continue to face accusations of being a court that serves power rather than justice.
