The Countenance of ICC for Human Rights

By
Abdullah Bin Abbas
-
0
76
The Countenance of ICC for Human Rights by GSI
The Countenance of ICC for Human Rights: by GSI

On 20th August 2025, the US Secretary of the state Marco Rubio gave a statement that the Trump administration has decided to put a new series of sanctions on International Criminal Court and its judges. These sanctions are in response to the decisions taken by ICC against Israel and for issuing arrest warrants of war criminal Prime Minister Benjamin Natan Yahu.

Furthermore, the court has decided to initiate investigation of war crimes perpetrated by US during war on terror in Afghanistan. The sanctioned judges are nationals of France, Canada, Fiji and Senegal. The ferocious and illicit treatment of people of Gaza by Israel, sent ripples across the globe that led to the epochal development when France and Canada decided to recognize State of Palestine.

“The Court is a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare against the United States and our close ally Israel.” Said Marco Rubio.

Historically US has withdrawn its struggle for protecting human rights and enforcing universal values on various occasions when doing so conflicted with its national interest. It refused to ratify Rome of Statute of International Criminal Court (ICC) to protect its citizens from outside persecutions. Due to its geopolitical alignment with countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, it remained silent over mass violation of human rights during Cold War era to support authoritarian rules.

Since the beginning of the Post 20th century era, West under the benign canopy of US had been vocal about human rights and liberal norms. Does Western political leadership really think about protection of human rights, not the case. The answer is very conspicuous and can be traced by joining the contours of Western behavior when human rights are on stake in third world countries particularly Islamic and African nations. When justice tries to incarcerate those who violate laws spearheaded by Western powers, the discourse of human rights proves to be nothing but a sound bomb. Hitherto, the same ICC court had won assent of Western states when it charged four head of states for their vigorous violation of human rights in African continent.

The US and its bedrock ally Israel, both are not member of ICC. But in international law, referring to Article 12, read with paragraph 2 of the Rome statue, ICC can charge individuals for perpetrating crimes in the territory that is signatory or party to the ICC. It provides raison d’etre that neither US nor Israel can surpass the precincts of global justice system. The pyromaniac state of Israel has been systematically violating international law by inflicting egregious war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity since the beginning of the war.
Here, the conscience of the world questions why US is derailing the body that is custodian of the global justice and universal norms that were adopted as modus operandi of liberal world order. But the conscience of US from rest of the world is different and always comes with exception. When law serves its own interest, (i.e. the Darfur case 2002 and Libya case 2011) they turn on the green light showing insurmountable assent. Otherwise, they declare the decisions of the competent authority as ultra-Vires to protect their illicit interests. In addition, the cost of defiance can strangle those who censure against US.

As Thomas Hobbes said that law is the dictate or command of the sovereign. So, international law can be understood clearly by analyzing the continuum foreign policy of US that is to act as police man of international affairs by holding stick as a tool of punishment to discipline others excluding itself by condescendence.

The U.S. sanctions against the ICC expose the double standards of Western powers when it comes to human rights. The ICC was created to act as an unbiased body to serve justice, but it has been reduced to a battleground where politics often trumps law. For justice to be truly universal, powerful states must be held accountable in the same way as weaker ones.

Otherwise, international law will remain a tool of the powerful, rather than a shield for the oppressed. The countenance of the ICC, therefore, reflects not only the struggle for human rights but also the enduring tension between power and justice in our world today. The disdain shown toward ICC is not tactical move, but an organized attempt to legitimize despotic approach to human rights in conflict zones.

By discrediting the Court, US seek to normalize impunity for those who violate international human rights law and international humanitarian law as well.  It is not only quagmire to deliver justice but also threat to the future of human rights law as universal principle. If great powers can undermine institutions of justice on their convenience, weaker states are left vulnerable to exploitation, oppression and occupation.

The decision of the Trump administration to disdain ICC is an onerous attempt of euphemism to legitimize cruelty and extortion of Palestinian territory. Such behavior is not only undermining the core principles of human rights and international law but is also setting ground for future generations to follow the same path. What is happening in Gaza is not uncertainty but an egregious machination.

References: