Is the ICC losing its relevance as major powers opt out?

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 marked a significant milestone in the quest for global justice.

The Rome Statute, adopted in 1998 by 120 states, created a permanent institution to prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes of international concern, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Despite the optimism surrounding its creation, the ICC’s relevance and credibility have been questioned in recent years, particularly as major global powers have opted out or actively opposed the Court’s actions.

To date, 125 countries are members of the ICC. However, several major powers, such as the United States, China, Russia, and India, have refused to join. While the Court has been instrumental in addressing crimes and holding individuals accountable, it has predominantly focused on cases in Africa, which has led to accusations of bias. Countries such as Burundi, Kenya, Sudan (Darfur), Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have been involved in ICC proceedings. Six of the ICC’s field offices are located in Africa, further emphasising its focus on the continent.

The ICC has pursued high-profile cases, including the prosecution of Thomas Lubanga, the former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots, and the issuance of arrest warrants for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo.

However, the Court has faced criticism for focusing almost exclusively on African leaders, with some critics accusing it of being a tool for Western powers to exert influence over Africa.

This perception of bias has led to growing frustration in several African nations, with some leaders calling for their withdrawal from the Court.

Legitimacy

The absence of key global powers from the ICC’s jurisdiction has been a major challenge for the Court’s legitimacy.

The United States, for example, signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but withdrew its signature in 2002 under the Bush administration.

A primary concern for the U.S. was the potential for ICC investigations into American military personnel, particularly those involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In 2015, both the Philippines and Burundi formally withdrew from the Court’s jurisdiction, citing concerns about the ICC’s perceived bias and lack of accountability.

The U.S. has taken several steps to undermine the ICC's authority in recent years. In 2019, the U.S. imposed visa restrictions on ICC staff, particularly in response to the Court’s decision to investigate potential war crimes committed by U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. U.S. Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, denounced the ICC’s actions as a “political vendetta” and labelled the  Court as an “irresponsible political institution.” In 2020, the U.S. even threatened to impose economic sanctions against ICC officials.

On November 21, 2024, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in relation to Israel’s actions in Gaza, prompting further tensions.

The U.S. responded with legislative action, and in January 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act," which seeks to impose sanctions on any individual who investigates or prosecutes citizens of the U.S. or allied countries, including Israel.

The move is seen as a direct challenge to the ICC’s authority and a reflection of the ongoing tension between the Court and the world’s major powers. 

Credibility

The controversy surrounding the ICC’s actions has raised questions about its effectiveness in delivering justice. Critics argue that the Court’s inability to hold powerful nations accountable, particularly those outside its jurisdiction, undermines its credibility.

The ICC has also been criticised for its perceived bias and inefficiency, with critics accusing it of focusing too heavily on African nations while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses elsewhere.

Russia’s position on the ICC is another example of the Court’s diminishing relevance. Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but has never ratified it.

In 2016, President Vladimir Putin signed a decree officially rejecting membership, citing the ICC’s failure to live up to its expectations. Russian officials have consistently criticised the Court for its political bias and lack of professionalism. In 2021, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed Moscow’s stance, accusing the ICC of showing political bias and a lack of understanding of international law.

The ICC on March 17, 2023 also issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, and Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Russian commissioner for children's rights, in the context of the situation in Ukraine. However, nothing came out of that threat just like that of Israel. 

Enforcement

The ICC’s challenges are not only limited to the refusal of major powers to cooperate but also to the issue of enforcement. Many countries, including Russia, have openly defied ICC rulings, refusing to arrest individuals under its warrants.

The Court’s inability to enforce its decisions has raised doubts about its ability to effect real change in the global justice landscape.

The ICC’s future will likely depend on whether it can secure the cooperation of powerful states, address concerns about bias, and strengthen its enforcement mechanisms.

Without these changes, the Court risks becoming increasingly marginalised in a world where political considerations often trump the pursuit of justice.