Criminal Justic ICC Double Standard Jeopardizes the Rule of Law

-

 

The Mockery of ICC Justice: Why Duterte is Targeted While Putin, Netanyahu, and the Taliban Walk Free?

ICC's double standards undermine the international legal Order

By Wahab Raofi

On Tuesday, Philippine police arrested former President Rodrigo Duterte in Manila and sent him to the Netherlands to face charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

“His arrest could bring victims and their families closer to justice and sends a clear message that no one is above the law. The Marcos government should swiftly surrender him to the ICC,” said Bryony Lau, Human Rights Watch’s deputy Asia director.

But is this truly justice, or just a selective show of accountability? Is everyone really equal before the law?

Mr. Lau, since you speak of justice, let me ask you:

  • What about Russian President Vladimir Putin, responsible for the deaths of thousands in Ukraine?
  • What about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accused of massacring thousands of innocent Palestinians?
  • And what about Afghanistan’s Taliban leadership, listed as terrorists yet freely traveling the world?

Be honest—your conscience must tell you the truth: You cannot take on the powerful, so you go after weaker targets to prove you exist. But if you refuse to face reality, allow me to hold up a mirror for you.

Selective Prosecution: A Pattern of Bias

The ICC presents itself as a pillar of global justice, yet its selective prosecution exposes deep hypocrisy. It pursues leaders from weaker nations while turning a blind eye to more powerful figures, such as Vladimir Putin, Netanyahu, or the Taliban leadership, despite their well-documented crimes. This selective enforcement undermines the ICC’s credibility and reinforces a system where justice is only applied to the weak.

1. The Case of Netanyahu and Israel

In 2024, ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. However, U.S. President Joe Biden condemned the decision as “outrageous,” declaring, “We will always stand with Israel.”

What explains Biden’s stance? The evidence suggests hypocrisy—supporting the ICC when it serves U.S. interests while shielding allies from scrutiny. This selective approach undermines international law.

2. The Case of Putin and Russia

The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for alleged war crimes, specifically the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. Additionally, a warrant was issued for Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s commissioner for children's rights.

While these warrants exist, the ICC lacks enforcement power. The world watches as Putin continues to wage war without consequence, exposing the ICC’s inability to hold the powerful accountable.

3. The Case of the Taliban Leadership

On January 23, 2025, the ICC prosecutor announced applications for arrest warrants against two Taliban leaders, including Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and Chief Justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani, for crimes against humanity related to the persecution of women and girls.

Despite these charges, Taliban leaders continue to travel internationally, attend diplomatic meetings, and rule Afghanistan without facing ICC prosecution. Their impunity highlights the ICC’s failure to act beyond issuing symbolic warrants.

The ICC: A Political Tool, Not a Court of Justice

The truth is that the ICC functions more as a political tool than a true court of justice. It is wielded by Western powers, particularly the United States, to target adversaries while shielding allies from prosecution.

Established in 1998 under the Rome Statute, the ICC claims jurisdiction over atrocity crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. However, its actions reveal a biased application of justice, disproportionately targeting leaders from smaller or geopolitically weaker nations.

Justice for Some, Not for All

The ICC’s selective prosecution of leaders like Duterte while ignoring more powerful criminals exposes its deep hypocrisy. Instead of serving as an unbiased court of justice, it appears to be a tool that punishes the weak while sparing the strong.

If the ICC truly aims to uphold justice, it must prove its credibility by taking action against all violators of international law—regardless of political power or global influence. Until then, it remains a flawed institution delivering only selective justice.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump dosn't want another war but his Rhetoric Could Stoke Many

-
  By Wahab Raofi The Prussian diplomat Klemens Wenzel Fürst von Metternich famously said, "When America sneezes, the world catches a cold." In much the same way, one could say that when America speaks, the world listens. American adversaries carefully analyze and adjust their agendas in response to U.S. actions, while regional powers focus on strategies to exert influence over their weaker neighbors. Trump was quoted as saying he would not rule out using military or economic action to pursue acquisition of the Panama Canal and Greenland, part of a broader expansionist agenda he has promoted since winning the Nov. 5 election. From Greenland to Panama to Mexico, leaders are in shock.  One has to wonder if Trump is even aware that such rhetoric undermines diplomatic norms, jeopardizes global stability and emboldens adversaries to take similar actions, potentially escalating conflicts beyond control.  What does Trump, as an incoming president, aim to achieve by with such pr...
Read more

Here’s Why We Need a Maximum Age Limit for Presidential Candidates

-
    Now that the first presidential debate has concluded, the verdict is clear: the true losers are the American people. They now face a choice between two aging men, neither of whom appears fully equipped to lead a vibrant and dynami   Just before tuning into the American presidential debate, I was catching up on Iran's election developments online. Following the tragic death of former President Raisi in a helicopter crash, Iranians were urged to participate in the polls to elect a new leader. Initially, 80 candidates entered the race, but only a select few received approvals after scrutiny from a panel of Islamic clerics, ultimately endorsed by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.   This process highlights the limited autonomy Iranian citizens have in selecting their leader. They are onstrained to choosing from a pre-approved pool of candidates.   Unfortunately, a similar situation arises in this year’s U.S. election, where voters find themse...
Read more

"Freedom of Speech Under Assault

-
    Arrest of Mohamoud Khalil is a Warning to Free Speech By Wahab Raofi The latest arrest of Mahmoud Khalil for political reasons silences critics, undermines justice and threatens our own freedom of speech. A Syrian-born Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent, Khalil had been a leader of pro-Palestine protests that consumed Columbia University’s campus life. His arrest by ICE for organizing protests and spreading hate speech against the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza — actions that resulted in civilian casualties — has ignited a heated debate on the issue of free speech as protected by the First Amendment. Many Americans believe expelling individuals for political speech sets a dangerous precedent, and outright political expulsions are rare. Instead, the U.S. government typically justifies such actions under legal violations, immigration laws or national security concerns. A statement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said that Khali...
Read more