4
0
On October 7, 2025, two years after the Hamas offensive, calls for justice in the Israel-Gaza war remain a global priority. Yet, enforcing accountability is increasingly fraught. Over the past year, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has intensified its investigations, notably issuing arrest warrants last November for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But as the Court moves closer to holding Israeli officials accountable, the United States emerges as a barrier to justice. Through a series of escalating sanctions and threats, Washington is undermining the ICC’s ability to prosecute its allies. This confrontation will define the Court’s reach when justice collides with geopolitical interests.
An ICC Under Siege
In response to the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli officials, the Trump administration launched an aggressive campaign against the Court. In February, an executive order placed ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan under sanctions, branding the Court’s investigations “illegitimate and baseless.” Within months, Washington expanded its retaliation to judges and prosecutors involved in cases linked to Israel and Afghanistan. Two of the targeted judges were from France and Canada, shortly after their governments recognized a Palestinian state. Washington also sanctioned the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for cooperating with the Court.
On September 22, 2025, media reports revealed that the United States was considering sanctions against the ICC itself. Should the Trump administration follow through on these threats, it would mark the first attack on the Court as an institution, which would inevitably impact its ability to operate, and set a dangerous precedent. This would ultimately signal a global order where power and influence prevail over international law.
The Cost of Financial Leverage
Backed by 125 States Parties, the ICC was created in 2002 as a last resort to enforce accountability and restore justice when national systems fail. However, continued attacks from powerful non-member states now threaten to paralyze its operations. As a non-member of the Rome Statute, the United States is leveraging financial coercion, or in other words, “weaponizing the international financial system,” to undermine the Court’s reach. A public letter from dozens of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supporting the ICC warned that U.S. threats alone are enough to scare off international service providers, banks, and insurers, making routine transactions onerous.
For Gaza, the implications of reduced funding for the ICC’s investigations are severe. Just as the Court moves to pursue justice for the victims of indiscriminate bombings, mass displacement, and civilian targeting, sanctions threaten to stall or obstruct its efforts. Beyond Gaza, all ongoing investigations stand to suffer if the ICC is deprived of financial resources and international support. The ICC is currently investigating crimes by the Taliban in Afghanistan, state-sponsored repression under Maduro in Venezuela, and mass atrocities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet it is the case involving Israel – a close U.S. ally – that has triggered unprecedented retaliation. Therefore, justice is only pursued when it does not threaten geopolitical interests.
A Double Standard in Global Justice
This contradiction is not new, but Gaza has made it impossible to ignore. The selective application of legal norms reveals how justice, once envisioned as universal, now depends on political agendas. When the ICC prosecutes African leaders or rebel commanders like Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir or Uganda’s Joseph Kony, it faces no backlash from Western nations. However, when the Court dares to investigate alleged crimes committed by Washington’s allies, its legitimacy is instantly questioned, its funding threatened, and its judges personally sanctioned. This disparity exposes a hierarchy of accountability in which the law is applied most forcefully to the powerless, while the powerful operate with impunity.
The United States and Israel justify their resistance by arguing the ICC “has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority” over non-member states – this is a misrepresentation of the law. The Rome Statute allows the Court to prosecute crimes committed on the territory of a member state. Thus, Palestine, which joined the ICC in 2015, qualifies. The ICC’s mandate is therefore clear and legally grounded. The inconsistency of Washington’s stance becomes increasingly evident when considering its position on Ukraine. Under Biden’s administration, the U.S. government supported the ICC’s investigation and the arrest warrants issued against senior Russian government and military officials, including President Vladimir Putin. In contrast, when the Court applies the same legal standards to Israel, the narrative shifts to accusations of overreach and bias.
The Future of International Law
The politicization of accountability threatens the legitimacy of the global justice system. If Gaza becomes the case that breaks the ICC, the consequences will be global: a world of double standards where victims of war crimes are left without legal recourse if their oppressors are too powerful. To avoid that collapse, ICC member states must go beyond rhetorical support by enacting national laws to protect individuals and companies from U.S. sanctions, ensuring financial and logistical support for the Court, and fully cooperating with investigations, including executing arrest warrants.
The ICC can indict, but without cooperation, its rulings carry little weight. Its struggle to withstand U.S. pressure reveals how international law rests on the political will of states, not on legal principles alone. This moment will determine whether Rome Statute members are prepared to defend the institution they built. The ICC was created to hold those who defy the law accountable. Its survival now depends on whether states are willing to do the same.
Edited by Matteo de Campos Mello Grijns
The argument defended in this article is solely that of the author and does not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science, the Political Science Students’ Association, or the McGill Department of Political Science.
Featured image by arsenisspyros, obtained through iStock Photo
