Does the ICC Really Target Only Certain Countries?

31 out of 33. That's how many African suspects the International Criminal Court has indicted since its inception. Coincidence? Or systematic bias?

The ICC is under fire like never before. Following arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, critics worldwide are asking: Has the world's premier war crimes tribunal become a tool of Western power?

The numbers tell a stark story. Since 2002, the ICC has opened investigations into 17 situations across the globe. 11 of them involve African countries. Meanwhile, Western military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have largely escaped scrutiny.

The African Exodus

Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya's former president, didn't mince words: "The ICC is a tool to hunt Africans." His sentiment echoes across the continent. In 2016, Burundi, Gambia, and South Africa announced their withdrawal from the Rome Statute (though Gambia and South Africa later reversed course).

The African Union has been even more direct, accusing the ICC of "hunting" African leaders while ignoring crimes committed by Western powers. Moussa Faki, the AU's chairman, called it "double standards and mockery of justice."

But is this criticism fair? The ICC's defenders point to self-referrals – situations where African governments themselves requested ICC intervention. Uganda was actually the first country to refer a situation to the court, asking for investigation into Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army.

The Western Immunity Question

Yet the absence of Western leaders from ICC dockets remains glaring. Tony Blair's Iraq invasion, based on questionable intelligence, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. George W. Bush's administration authorized torture at Abu Ghraib. French military interventions in West Africa have raised human rights concerns.

Why haven't these triggered ICC investigations? The court's complementarity principle provides part of the answer – the ICC only acts when national courts can't or won't. Western democracies, the argument goes, have functioning judicial systems capable of investigating their own.

But critics see this as circular logic. Who decides which judicial systems are "adequate"? And why should domestic investigations by the very countries accused of crimes be considered sufficient?

Follow the Money

The ICC's funding structure reveals potential conflicts of interest. European nations – Germany, France, the UK, and the Netherlands – provide the bulk of the court's €150 million annual budget. The United States, despite not being a member, has provided substantial voluntary contributions for specific investigations.

This financial dependence raises uncomfortable questions. Can a court truly be impartial when its funding comes primarily from one geopolitical bloc? The optics alone are damaging – a Western-funded court prosecuting primarily African defendants.

Staffing patterns compound these concerns. Of the ICC's 18 judges, more than half come from Western or Western-aligned nations. The current prosecutor, Karim Khan, is British. While individual integrity isn't in question, the institutional composition sends a message about whose perspectives matter.

The Structural Defense

Karim Khan and his predecessors have consistently defended the court's record. They point out that many African cases involved crimes of exceptional gravity – genocide in Darfur, mass atrocities in Central African Republic, systematic rape in Congo.

Moreover, they argue, the ICC has increasingly expanded its geographical reach. Investigations into Georgia, Palestine, and Afghanistan show the court's willingness to challenge powerful interests. The Afghanistan probe, which included potential US war crimes, was particularly significant – even though it was ultimately dropped after US pressure.

The court also emphasizes its victim-centered approach. Millions of Africans have suffered from the conflicts under investigation. Shouldn't their quest for justice matter more than geopolitical sensitivities?

The Legitimacy Crisis

But legitimacy can't be built on good intentions alone. The ICC's credibility crisis extends beyond Africa. Russia dismisses it as a "Western puppet." China questions its jurisdiction. Even some European allies express private frustrations with the court's perceived selectivity.

This erosion of legitimacy has real consequences. When major powers reject international justice institutions, the entire post-World War II legal order comes under strain. The ICC was meant to end impunity for mass atrocities. Instead, it's increasingly seen as another arena for great power competition.