Why Doesn’t International Law Apply to the West?

A new push for International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants against Israeli leaders has reignited a central question: if the United States can shield allies from international legal consequences, what purpose do international law and courts actually serve? In May, the ICC’s lead prosecutor sought arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity tied to the war in Gaza—claims that include mass civilian harm, attacks on medical personnel and journalists, the use of internationally banned white phosphorus, and repeated strikes on areas described as “safe zones.” The ICC also sought warrants for Hamas leadership, but the U.S. response has been blunt: House Speaker Mike Johnson said the U.S. “refuses” to allow “international bureaucrats” to issue warrants for “false crimes,” while President Joe Biden publicly denied genocide in remarks from the Rose Garden.

The transcript frames this as more than a dispute over one conflict. It argues that Western power routinely treats international law as conditional—invoked when it aligns with geopolitical interests and ignored when it threatens allies. The U.S. and its partners, it says, have repeatedly denied accountability even when violations are widely documented, including U.S. actions in Vietnam (such as the My Lai massacre, Agent Orange/defoliant use, and large-scale bombing and operations with heavy civilian tolls) and later wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus drone campaigns in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The pattern, according to the account, is selective enforcement: the ICC has pursued cases heavily concentrated on African leaders—naming Sudan’s Omar Al Bashir, Kenya’s William Ruto, and Uganda’s Joseph Kony—while cases involving Western leaders or close allies remain absent.

That selectivity is linked to structural constraints. The ICC lacks its own enforcement arm and depends on states to arrest suspects and provide evidence, leaving it vulnerable to non-cooperation. The transcript points to Article 98 of the Rome Statute, which can be used to prevent surrender requests that would conflict with a state’s international obligations, including bilateral immunity arrangements. It also highlights the UN Security Council’s veto power—held by the U.S., UK, France, Russia, and China—as a mechanism that can block referrals or actions that threaten major powers’ interests. Beyond formal vetoes, it adds that economic and diplomatic leverage can pressure other countries and institutions to avoid supporting ICC moves.

The transcript’s bottom line is that the ICC’s legitimacy is undermined when powerful states can refuse cooperation, block referrals, and insulate their personnel—making international law function less like a neutral system of justice and more like a tool for maintaining a Western-dominated order. In that view, the current case will not deliver accountability for U.S.-backed Israeli actions, not because the crimes are unprovable, but because the political architecture surrounding enforcement makes consequences unlikely. The result is a bleak conclusion: as long as the U.S. and allies evade accountability, “true justice” remains unfulfilled.