Why International Criminal Courts Rarely Convict the Powerful
September 6, 2025 · Frisian News
The International Criminal Court has convicted fewer than 150 people since 1998, almost none of them sitting heads of state or government officials from major powers. Structural limits, political pressure, and weak enforcement make international justice a tool that rarely reaches those who order atrocities.
The International Criminal Court in The Hague announced last month that it would seek arrest warrants for three officials accused of war crimes in Gaza. Within hours, powerful nations rejected the move. The United States, which funds much of the world's military interventions, rejected the court's jurisdiction. Israel, a close American ally, denounced it as political theater. This moment captured the core problem: international courts prosecute the weak and convict the friendless, while the strong walk free.
Since 1998, the ICC has convicted fewer than 150 people worldwide. Most come from small nations or lack state protection. The court convicted Bosniaks and Serbs from former Yugoslavia, Rwandans, Ugandans, and Congolese militias. It convicted a Sudanese leader after he lost power. But it has never convicted a serving head of state from a permanent UN Security Council member, nor a top American, British, French, or Russian official. This pattern does not happen by accident. It reflects the court's built-in helplessness.
The ICC depends on states to arrest suspects and hand them over for trial. No police force answers to the court. No international army enforces its warrants. When Vladimir Putin won an ICC arrest warrant for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, Russia simply ignored it. When American soldiers committed offenses, the American government blocked investigations. When Israeli forces killed civilians, the court faced diplomatic fury from Washington. The court can issue warrants all it wants, but enforcement requires the cooperation of the very powers it might wish to investigate.
Political pressure works through other channels too. Major powers withhold funding or threaten to withdraw from the court entirely if investigations threaten their interests. The United States and Israel both took steps to constrain the court's reach. African nations, which dominate the court's docket, accused it of selective justice, prosecuting Africans while ignoring powerful nations. These complaints held merit. The court's prosecutor chooses which conflicts to examine, and the choice often depends on which countries can be bullied into cooperation and which cannot.
The court serves a real purpose for weak states and victimized populations who might otherwise see justice only through revenge. But treating it as an instrument of universal law enforcement creates dangerous illusions. International courts punish the defeated and comfort the comfortable. Until the major powers surrender enforcement authority to a body they cannot control, expect the powerful to answer only to themselves.
It Ynternasjonale Strafhof yn Den Haag kondige foarige moanne oan arrestaasjebefel sykje sil foar trije ambtners beskuldiget fan oarlochsmisdieaden yn Gaza. Binnen oeren wezen machtige naasjes it ôf. De Ferenije Steaten, dy't in soad fan 'e militêre yntervinsjes yn 'e wrâld finansje, ferworpen de rjchtsmacht fan it hof. Israël, in nauwe Amerikaanske alliâns, neamde it politike toniel. Dit momint vatte it kernprobleem gear: ynternasjonale gerechten ferfolge de swakken en feroardiele de freonleaze, wylst de sterken frij útgean.
Sinds 1998 hat it ICC minder as 150 minsken wrâldwide feroardiele. De measte komme út lytse naasjes of misse statesbeskerming. It hof feroardiele Bosniërs en Serven út ferline Joegoslavië, Rwandezen, Ugandezen en Congolese milities. It feroardiele in Soedaanske lieder nei't hy oan 'e macht ferlierd. Mar it hat nea in sittende steatshoof fan in permanint lid fan 'e VN Feiligheidsried feroardiele, noch in topambtner fan Amerika, Grut-Britanje, Frankryk of Ruslân. Dit patroan bart net per ûngelok. It werspegelet de ynboude hulpeloaskheit fan it hof.
It ICC hinget ôf fan steaten om fertochten te arrestearjen en se ter terjochting út te lieverjen. Gjin politsjemacht antwoordt oan it hof. Gjin ynternasjonaal leger hanthavdet syn bevelen. Doe't Vladimir Poetin in ICC-arrestaasjebefel foar fertochte oarlochsmisdieaden yn Oekraïne ûntfûn, negeare Ruslân it ienfâldichwei. Doe't Amerikaanske soldaten misdieaden diene, blokkeare de Amerikaanske regearring ûndersieken. Doe't Israëlyske troepen boargers dea, seach it hof diplomatike tsjirn út Washington. It hof kin bevelen útfurderje safeel't it wol, mar hanthavding fereasket gearwurking fan just de machten dy't it ûndersieken wol.
Politike druk wurket ek fia oare kanalen. Grutte machten hâlde finansiering yn of bedige út it hof werom te trekken as ûndersieken har belangen bedrigelje. De Ferenije Steaten en Israël nimmen stappen om it berik fan it hof yn te perke. Afrikaanske naasjes, dy't it dossier fan it hof dominearje, beskuldiget it fan selektive rjchtewisse, it ferfolgen fan Afrikanen wylst machtige naasjes negearje. Dizze klachten hiene wearde. De iepenbiere åankleager fan it hof kiist hokker konflikten ûndersieken, en de kar hinget faaks ôf fan hokker landen kin wurden terroriseare yn gearwurking en hokker net.
It hof hat in echte doel foar swakke steaten en slachtoffer gemeentskippen dy't oars allinne troch wroking rjchtewisse seagen. Mar it behanneljen as in ark fan universele wetshandhavding skapt gefaarlike illúzjes. Ynternasjonale gerechten strafje de fersleine en troost de komfortabelen. Oant de grutte machten hanthavdings besiogdheid oerdrage oan in orgaan dat sy net kinne kontrolearje, ferwachtsje net dat de sterken allinne foar himsels antwoorde.
Published September 6, 2025 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân