Iran Pushes Back at ICC Credibility as African Lawyers Question ‘One-Sided’ Justice
A Lebanese international arbitrator says U.S. pressure is effectively paralyzing the International Criminal Court, while a Tanzanian lawyer argues the court has focused on Africa and avoided taking on Western-linked cases. The criticism reflects growing resistance to a justice system many in the Global South see as selective—and comes as major powers clash over war crimes and sanctions enforcement.
The International Criminal Court is facing renewed accusations that its scales of justice are tilted toward the powerful. In recent commentary, a Lebanese international arbitrator argued that political and financial pressure from the United States is effectively “paralyzing” the ICC, while a Tanzanian lawyer said the court shows resolve mainly when pursuing African leaders and falters when alleged crimes implicate Western countries or their allies.
The Lebanese expert contended that the White House possesses not only the ability to cut funding to the court, but is already exerting pressure strong enough to constrain its work. Though the remarks did not cite specific cases, they tapped into a long-running thread of concern: that when ICC actions begin to threaten Western interests, investigations stall, arrest warrants are delayed or never issued, and judicial independence gives way to geopolitical bargaining.
The Tanzanian lawyer’s critique, meanwhile, focused on the ICC’s track record. He noted that many of the court’s most high-profile prosecutions have targeted African heads of state and rebel leaders, often with strong Western backing, while situations involving alleged abuses by Western militaries or intelligence services have seen limited progress or none at all. These patterns, he argued, reinforce perceptions across Africa that the ICC is less an impartial arbiter and more an instrument of selective accountability.
For victims of atrocities—from Sudan to Gaza, from Ukraine to Afghanistan—the debate is not academic. Access to a credible, functioning international court can mean the difference between having their suffering recognized in a legal forum and watching alleged perpetrators move freely on the international stage. When legal experts argue that the court becomes hesitant once cases touch Western actors, that message filters back to communities hoping for justice and can deepen disillusionment.
Strategically, the stakes go beyond the ICC itself. Major powers are increasingly invoking war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in their information campaigns, whether over conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East or Africa. If the institution tasked with adjudicating such claims is seen as compromised, the vocabulary of international law risks turning into just another political weapon, eroding its deterrent power. States accused of serious violations, from Sudan’s government to non-state armed groups, are quick to point to perceived double standards to deflect criticism.
The criticism also intersects with broader geopolitical shifts. As countries like China and Russia challenge Western dominance in global governance, skepticism toward Western-led or Western-backed institutions becomes a useful tool. African governments that resent ICC interventions on their soil can align with this skepticism to gain negotiating leverage with both Western partners and alternative backers. In this environment, expert voices from the Global South questioning the court’s independence carry particular weight.
For the ICC, the perception problem is compounded by real constraints: it relies on state cooperation for arrests and access, depends on member contributions for funding and must navigate threats of sanctions or travel restrictions from major non-member states. Those structural dependencies make it vulnerable to exactly the kind of pressure the Lebanese arbitrator described, even if the court’s leadership insists on its formal independence.
When justice is seen as negotiable, the deterrent effect of international law weakens for everyone, not just Western adversaries. Armed leaders weighing whether to authorize mass atrocities will factor in not only the prospect of a distant courtroom, but also whether their patrons or enemies control the levers of that court’s power.
Signals to watch include the ICC’s willingness to open or advance investigations that implicate Western militaries or senior officials, responses from African Union bodies to these critiques, and any concrete financial or political measures by major powers aimed at constraining the court. How the ICC handles high-profile situations touching both Western and non-Western actors over the next few years will do more than any speech to determine whether these criticisms become the dominant narrative about global justice.
Sources
- OSINT