Ukraine and its allies dream of seeing Putin on the ICC bench. But by the time such a moment might arrive, the court may be incapable of bringing him to justice.
In an era where the international order is being violently reshaped, the struggles of the International Criminal Court (ICC) might seem secondary. They’re not. The ICC stands as our only permanent international criminal tribunal. Its effectiveness measures the pulse of international law itself. If the ICC falters, we face a stark reality: state leaders committing atrocities with impunity. Might makes right. Law becomes meaningless.
The ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on 21 November 2024 represent a breaking point. Netanyahu called the charges absurd. More telling was Poland’s reaction.
With Netanyahu planning to visit Poland for the 80th anniversary of Auschwitz’s liberation (27 January 2025), Polish President Andrzej Duda formally requested that Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government shield Netanyahu from arrest. The government quickly proposed a resolution guaranteeing Israeli officials’ immunity during the commemoration.
The Holocaust deserves profound respect. But Poland’s stance creates a dangerous contradiction. As a Rome Statute signatory, Poland has legal obligations to enforce ICC warrants. By refusing, Poland undermines not just the court but the entire framework of international justice.
World powers push back against ICC warrants
Poland isn’t alone. South Africa refused to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir despite his ICC warrant. Mongolia rejected Putin’s arrest warrant in 2024. Hungary declared it wouldn’t touch Netanyahu. Switzerland announced it would welcome Putin for peace talks while ignoring his March 2023 ICC warrant.
The Rome Statute has nuances. Article 98 states: “The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.”
Yet, only Switzerland cited this provision. The others offered naked political justifications.
The hostility reached new extremes when the US Congress proposed sanctions against ICC officials investigating Israeli leaders. Though that bill failed, newly elected President Trump bypassed Congress with an executive order sanctioning the ICC and its leadership—continuing his antagonism toward the court.
These actions signal a systemic crisis. They reveal that powerful nations prioritize political interests over their voluntary Rome Statute commitments. Worse, they expose international justice’s impotence against leaders with genuine global influence.
Can this crisis be resolved? Unclear. But without fundamental changes to strengthen trust in the ICC and reform international justice approaches, the court risks becoming irrelevant—a hollow symbol rather than an instrument of accountability.
Can ICC survive?
In 2022, the ICC marked 20 years of operation. It secured convictions and launched proceedings, but almost exclusively against figures from nations lacking significant geopolitical influence. Its focus on African countries—Mali, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Libya, Uganda—satisfied major global powers.
Everything changed when the ICC began pursuing leaders of nuclear states. First Putin, then Netanyahu and Gallant. The backlash was immediate. Russia declared ICC prosecutors and judges wanted suspects. The US imposed sanctions on ICC officials. Member states began reconsidering their commitment to the court’s jurisdiction, which is recognized by 120 of the world’s 195 countries.
Some propose dismantling or replacing the ICC. This misses the point. The problem isn’t the court’s structure but how international justice functions in a world of competing power interests.
America’s position matters enormously as the traditional security guarantor. The US never ratified the Rome Statute and later withdrew its signature. It consistently shielded American citizens through bilateral agreements. Still, it generally supported the ICC’s work—until now. Trump’s 2025 sanctions and statements send a clear message: The ICC is unnecessary, irritating, and will receive no American protection.
The ICC can only function when member states surrender some sovereignty over criminal matters and enforce court orders within their territories. Expecting states to sacrifice core interests, especially security concerns, for international justice is a fantasy.
In an ideal world, these mechanisms would operate through voluntary compliance. Reality demands enforcement mechanisms and accountability for non-compliance. Economic sanctions against countries ignoring Court orders could provide leverage. Simply expelling non-compliant states accomplishes nothing.
Rethinking ICC mechanisms for a resistant world
Reforming key ICC mechanisms could reduce dependence on member states when political crises threaten to paralyze its work. Trials in absentia—from proceedings to sentencing—would allow justice without the accused’s physical presence or reliance on arrest warrant enforcement. High-profile criminals might avoid prison, but justice would still be served.
Even a conviction in absentia by an international court damages a perpetrator’s legitimacy, making engagement by democratic leaders politically toxic. It establishes legal grounds for financial sanctions—freezing assets, compensating victims, and more. When political winds shift, these sentences could become enforceable.
These compromises with perfect justice could build a foundation for a more effective, resilient ICC.
Yet, today’s landscape offers little optimism. Recent ICC developments not only reflect a justice crisis but cast doubt on prospects for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression—potentially the strongest legal basis for holding Putin accountable.
Still, hope persists that international justice might overcome these challenges. A clear assessment of the problems and determined reevaluation of international court mechanisms must become global priorities if we are to preserve the rule of law in international relations.
