+ Follow
Image by succo from Pixabay

By- Gautam Kumar ,B.A.L.LB(Hons.),Central University Of South Bihar

In the first quarter of 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) finds itself at a critical inflection point. Celebrated by victims and human rights advocates for its pursuit of justice, yet simultaneously condemned and sanctioned by global powers, the ICC is navigating perhaps the most politically charged moment in its history. The arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in March, and the controversial U.S. sanctions imposed under President Donald Trump, in February, brought the Court into the international spotlight once more. These developments reveal the persistent tensions between the ICC's noble aspirations and the harsh realities of global geopolitics.

Understanding the ICC's Role

The ICC was established in 2002 under the Rome Statute as a permanent court to prosecute individuals—not states—for the gravest international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. With 125 state parties as of 2025, the ICC is mandated to intervene only when national jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to prosecute.

The Court is often described as a "court of last resort." It is designed to operate in the absence of credible domestic mechanisms and aims to fill accountability gaps left by failed or complicit states. But it lacks its enforcement arm and relies entirely on member state cooperation, making it uniquely vulnerable to the political climate.

Despite these constraints, the ICC has pursued critical cases across Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. It has prosecuted militia leaders from the Democratic Republic of Congo issued warrants against Sudan's Omar al-Bashir and launched investigations into crimes in Myanmar, Venezuela, and Ukraine. Each case illustrates the Court's commitment to pursuing justice where other institutions have failed.

U.S. Sanctions: Criminalizing Justice?

The ICC's boldest steps in recent months have triggered aggressive pushback, particularly from the United States. In February 2025, President Trump signed an executive order sanctioning the ICC and its Chief Prosecutor, Karim Khan. This marked a dramatic escalation in U.S. opposition to the Court, which began in earnest during Trump’s first term in 2020.

According to a CNN report, the new sanctions are a direct response to the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. These officials are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity during Israel's military operations in Gaza. The ICC also issued a warrant for a Hamas commander Mohammed Deif, reflecting its impartial approach to international justice.

President Trump condemned the Court's actions as "baseless and illegitimate," framing them as threats to U.S. national security and sovereignty. The executive order imposes economic and travel sanctions not only on ICC staff but also on anyone who materially supports the Court's investigations.

As noted, this move represents not just resistance to specific investigations but a fundamental repudiation of the Court’s authority. It sends a signal that the U.S. is prepared to use its economic power to shield allies and intimidate international institutions.

These developments were echoed in a joint statement from UN experts, who described the sanctions as "an attack on the global rule of law." They warned that the sanctions could deter banks, airlines, and human rights organizations from supporting the ICC, thereby undermining the institution's operational capacity.

Duterte's Arrest: A Historic Moment for Justice

In contrast to the U.S.'s punitive approach, the ICC achieved a historic breakthrough when former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested on March 11, 2025. As reported by Al Jazeera, Duterte was apprehended at Manila International Airport upon returning from Hong Kong, and was immediately placed on a flight to The Hague.

Duterte stands accused of crimes against humanity for his infamous "war on drugs," a campaign that resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 people, many of them poor and marginalized. The ICC began investigating these abuses in 2018 and resumed its inquiry in In 2023, after a brief suspension.

Despite the Philippines' withdrawal from the ICC in 2019 under Duterte, the Court retained jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was a party to the Rome Statute. This The legal principle was upheld by the Marcos Jr. administration, which had previously opposed ICC jurisdiction, but reversed its stance amid mounting political tensions with the Duterte administration family.

The arrest marked the first time a Southeast Asian head of state had been taken into ICC custody. It also validated the work of civil society groups like Rise Up and the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines, which had spent years gathering evidence and supporting victims’ families.

As one lawyer representing victims, Maria Kristina Conti, told Al Jazeera, the arrest is essential not just for justice, but to prevent historical revisionism and restore faith in the rule of law.

Systemic Challenges: A Court Under Siege

On one hand, it has achievements, while on the other hand, the ICC continues to face deep-rooted Challenges that undermine its credibility and effectiveness:

1. Dependence on State Cooperation: As seen in Duterte's case, the Court relies entirely on national authorities to execute its warrants. In situations where governments are hostile or conflicted, justice is easily delayed or denied.

2. Accusations of Selectivity: The ICC has been criticized for disproportionately targeting African leaders. While many of these cases were self-referred, the perception of bias has damaged the Court's legitimacy in parts of the Global South.

3. Security Council Obstruction: The Court’s dependence on UN Security Council referrals further politicizes its work. Veto powers like the U.S. and Russia often block investigations that threaten their interests or those of their allies.

4. Financial Vulnerability: The Trump sanctions are particularly dangerous because they target not just individuals, but the ICC's logistical backbone. By discouraging businesses, NGOs, and financial institutions from cooperating, they threaten to paralyze the Court.

Reactions and Recommendations

In the face of these challenges, the ICC has received significant support from the international community. Following the U.S. sanctions, 74 ICC member states reaffirmed their commitment to the Court. The European Union stated "unwavering support," and human rights organizations around the world called for legal protections for those cooperating with the ICC.

As outlined in the NGO brief, "What Do the Trump Administration’s Sanctions on the ICC Mean for Justice and Human Rights?", defending the ICC requires both diplomatic and legislative action. States must pass national laws insulating ICC personnel and collaborators from foreign sanctions. They must also continue to arrest and transfer indictees like Duterte and Putin when opportunities arise.

The ICC must also do its part by embracing reform. This includes increasing transparency in case selection, improving outreach to affected communities, and diversifying its prosecutorial focus. Enhancing credibility among Global South nations is essential to broadening its legitimacy.

Conclusion: Justice in the Balance

The ICC in 2025 is not just a court; it is a battleground between the ideals of global justice and the realities of international power. The contrasting developments of Trump’s sanctions and Duterte’s arrest illustrate the dual forces shaping their fate: resistance from powerful states and demand for justice from the powerless.

As the Court continues investigations into atrocities in Ukraine, Sudan, and beyond, its future hinges on the support of states, civil society, and an international public committed to accountability. The ICC is far from perfect, but in a world plagued by impunity, its existence remains indispensable.

If this moment is to become a turning point for international justice rather than its retreat, Then, global leaders must act not just in defense of the ICC, but in defense of the principles it represents.

The path ahead is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the fight for justice is far from over, and The ICC remains at its center.

References

  • CNN. “What is the ICC and Why Has Trump Sanctioned It?” By Christian Edwards. CNN
  • Politics. February 7, 2025. https://www.cnn.com
  • Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). “UN
  • Experts Condemn US Sanctions on ICC, Call Them an Attack on Global Rule of Law.”
  • February 2025. https://www.ohchr.org
  • Al Jazeera. “Why Has the Philippines Arrested Ex-President Duterte on ICC Warrant?” By
  • Ted Regencia. Al Jazeera News. March 11, 2025. https://www.aljazeera.com
  • International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 1998.
  • https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library
  • International Criminal Court. “Statement by the ICC Prosecutor on Arrest Warrants
  • Related to Gaza Conflict.” ICC Press Release. November 2024. https://www.icc-cpi.int
  • International Criminal Court. “Frequently Asked Questions.” ICC Website. Accessed April
  • 2025. https://www.icc-cpi.int/about
  • Amnesty International. “What the Trump Administration's Sanctions on the ICC Mean for
  • Justice and Human Rights.” Policy Brief. March 2025.
  • International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP). “Statement on the
  • Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte.” March 11, 2025. https://www.ichrp.net
  • Rise for Life and Rights. “Justice for Victims of Duterte’s Drug War.” Press Release. March 2025.

.    .    .

Discus