When the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin in 2023, Western leaders hailed the move as a moral triumph. They spoke of accountability, human rights, and a “rules-based order.”
Yet less than a year later, when the same court turned its attention to Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, those same voices began to sound very different.
Suddenly, the ICC was no longer a defender of law but an “outrageous overreach.” U.S. senators threatened retaliation. Germany and Poland offered political cover. Washington even referred to one of the strangest laws ever passed by a supposed ally of the Netherlands: the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, known by its nickname, the Hague Invasion Act.
The irony is difficult to ignore. The United States, which presents itself as the global guardian of democracy, passed a law authorizing military force against a fellow NATO member to free any American or allied personnel detained by the ICC. The court is based in The Hague, a city that stands as a symbol of international justice and accountability.
For decades, American diplomacy has promoted the idea of universal justice while protecting its own citizens and partners from scrutiny. When the ICC targeted African leaders or Russian generals, Washington applauded. When Israeli or American officials were named, the reaction was swift outrage.
Europe’s response revealed deep divisions. Ireland, Spain, and Belgium defended the ICC’s independence. Germany, Italy, and Poland condemned it. Poland even went as far as to guarantee Netanyahu safe passage, effectively declaring that international law stops where political loyalty begins.
This selective morality is nothing new. The same governments that froze Russian assets in the name of justice hesitate to condemn Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, despite the humanitarian catastrophe. Their message is clear: justice applies only when it serves political interests.
The idea of a rules-based order collapses when the rules are applied unevenly. If international law is not universal, it becomes a geopolitical weapon rather than a moral principle.
Supporters of the ICC argue that the court exists to uphold justice beyond political pressure. However, when the court investigates Western or Israeli leaders, the reaction proves otherwise. Sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and open threats replace calls for accountability.
Across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, governments are observing these contradictions closely. Many already view the ICC as a Western instrument used to prosecute the weak while protecting the strong. The Netanyahu case reinforces that belief.
This is not a defense of Russia or a condemnation of Israel. It is a simple statement that justice cannot depend on who holds power. If the West wants to lead by moral example, it must hold its allies to the same standard it demands of its enemies.
The ICC is not without flaws, but its mission, the pursuit of accountability, remains vital. The real test is not for the court, but for those who claim to stand behind it.
If the United States and its European partners continue to use international law as a political tool, they risk losing all moral authority. The world will see through the double standard, and the promise of global justice will fade into cynicism.
Perhaps history will remember the “Hague Invasion Act” not as an absurdity, but as a symbol of Western hypocrisy: a threat against the very idea of justice, issued by those who claim to defend it.