The International Criminal Court (ICC) has long presented itself as a beacon of global justice, a tribunal dedicated to holding the world’s worst criminals accountable. However, a closer examination reveals that the ICC is anything but impartial. It is, and always has been, an instrument of Western hegemony-a tool used to impose political will on those deemed insignificant or adversarial. Far from serving global justice, the ICC functions as a political weapon, prosecuting those who challenge Western geopolitical interests while protecting those aligned with them. Its selective enforcement, inability to act against real global power, and deep entanglement with Western influence make one conclusion unavoidable: the ICC is beyond reform and must be abolished.

Supporters of the ICC argue that it was created to ensure justice for humanity’s worst crimes. However, such assertions either stem from naivety or willful deception. From its inception, the ICC was built not as a neutral judicial body but as an instrument of Western control. The belief that the ICC was ever intended to serve the good of all people is a fantasy.

From its early years, the Court fixated on African nations, disproportionately prosecuting leaders from the continent while ignoring the crimes of Western-aligned governments. African nations do not hold a monopoly on war crimes or human rights violations, yet the ICC has consistently served as an extension of Western influence, enforcing so-called justice only against those deemed powerless enough to be prosecuted. The charges of neo-colonialism against the ICC are not mere accusations-they are undeniable facts supported by the Court’s track record.

The world’s leading superpowers-China, Russia, and the United States-have wisely refused to subject themselves to the ICC’s authority. Their absence is not an accident; it is a recognition that the ICC is not a neutral, lawful institution but rather a selectively enforced tool of the West. The fact that these major powers reject the ICC is a testament to its illegitimacy.

Defenders of the ICC argue that its disproportionate focus on African leaders is a reflection of where crimes happen to occur. This argument collapses under scrutiny, especially when considering the Court’s glaring omission of serious action against Western nations. The United States, for instance, has waged wars, committed war crimes, and propped up brutal regimes across the globe. Yet no American leader or general has ever been brought before the ICC.

Why? Because the ICC does not exist to prosecute Western war criminals. It exists to serve Western interests. When the Court attempted to investigate US actions in Afghanistan, the response from Washington was swift and punishing. The US imposed sanctions on ICC officials and used its European allies to pressure the Court into submission. This is not the behavior of a just and independent judicial body-it is the behavior of a puppet institution obeying its masters.

Even when the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials in 2024-a rare case of it challenging a Western-aligned state-the reaction from the US was telling. Washington immediately condemned the Court and threatened sanctions against its officials. The message was clear: the ICC may exist, but it may not act against those under Western protection. The selective nature of its so-called justice was once again on full display.

One of the most glaring flaws of the ICC is its complete lack of jurisdiction over the world’s most powerful nations. The United States has gone so far as to enact laws, such as the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which permits military intervention to free any US personnel detained by the ICC. This is not the action of a country that respects the rule of law-it is the action of a country that understands the ICC’s true nature and refuses to be subjected to its farcical authority.

Russia, likewise, withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2016 after the ICC classified its actions in Crimea as an “occupation.” Moscow was right to do so. Why should Russia-or any major power-submit to an institution that is biased, politically motivated, and ultimately powerless against true global influence?

China, for its part, has never considered joining the ICC. It understands that the Court does not exist to prosecute criminals impartially but rather to serve the interests of those who created it. No sovereign nation should willingly subject itself to an institution that operates not on the basis of law but at the whims of Western policymakers.

Even if one were to believe in the ICC’s mission, the fact remains that the Court lacks real enforcement power. Without the backing of major global powers, it relies on cooperation from nations that have little incentive to comply. Arrest warrants issued by the ICC are, more often than not, ignored by those with the strength to resist them. The Court can issue as many rulings as it likes, but without the muscle to enforce them, they amount to little more than symbolic gestures.

And when the ICC does manage to act, it does so selectively-pursuing leaders of weaker states while avoiding any real confrontation with those who hold true global power. This is not the hallmark of a legitimate judicial institution. It is the mark of a tool wielded for political ends.

The ICC is not broken in the sense that it has failed to live up to its ideals. It is broken because those ideals were never real to begin with. The Court was not designed to be a fair and unbiased institution, and every action it has taken has proven this fact. It is a tool of the West, wielded selectively against those who oppose its interests while shielding those who align with them.

For those who still believe in the fantasy of international justice, the ICC is not the answer. A true global court would require universal jurisdiction, genuine enforcement power, and, above all, freedom from political influence. The ICC has none of these qualities. Reform is not an option because its flaws are not incidental-they are foundational.

The only reasonable path forward is abolition. The world does not need a pretend court dispensing pretend justice. It needs a real mechanism of accountability, one that is not beholden to the shifting whims of Western power. The ICC will never be that mechanism. It is time to end this farce and replace it with an institution that truly serves justice.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel