The world is frequently told that international law applies equally to every country. Sovereignty must be respected. Civilians must be protected. Territorial conquest cannot be accepted. War crimes must be investigated, and those responsible must face justice.

These principles are central to the international order established after the Second World War.

But there is an uncomfortable question at the heart of global politics: if the rules are universal, why do the consequences appear so different depending on who breaks them, who supports them and who has the power to resist accountability?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompted sweeping Western sanctions and international legal action. Allegations concerning Israel’s conduct in Gaza have produced international court proceedings but also sharp divisions among Western governments. Meanwhile, powerful countries retain the ability to influence international institutions, restrict enforcement and protect their strategic interests.

These situations are not legally identical. Their facts, jurisdictions and procedural histories differ. Yet the contrast has intensified an argument heard across the Global South: international law may be universal in principle, but its enforcement is shaped by unequal political power.

That argument deserves scrutiny, not because international law is meaningless, but because its credibility depends on whether governments are prepared to apply the standards they invoke to their own allies.

A New Confrontation Has Made the Question Urgent

On October 9, 2026, the Trump administration announced sweeping sanctions against the International Criminal Court, extending pressure beyond individual court officials to companies providing services to the institution.

The decision threatens the practical operations of a court established to investigate and prosecute some of the gravest international crimes.

Washington argues that the ICC has exceeded its legitimate authority, particularly in matters involving American personnel and Israeli officials. The court and its supporters contend that the sanctions threaten judicial independence and the international accountability system.

The announcement came on the same day that former international judge Navi Pillay received the Nobel Peace Prize, creating a striking contrast between international recognition of judicial accountability and American pressure on the institution.

The controversy is about much more than one court.

It concerns who has the authority to investigate powerful states, whether governments can shield their officials from international scrutiny and whether legal institutions can function independently when major economies oppose their decisions.

Russia, Ukraine and the Principle of Sovereignty

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 challenged one of the central principles of the United Nations Charter: states must not use force against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence except under recognized legal exceptions.

Western governments responded with economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and extensive assistance to Ukraine.

The International Criminal Court subsequently issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.

That warrant was not a criminal conviction. It represented a judicial finding that the legal threshold for issuing an arrest warrant had been met.

Western support for accountability in Ukraine reflected a broader argument that political and military leaders should not be immune from investigation simply because they hold powerful positions.

But the principle becomes more difficult when international courts investigate leaders of countries allied with those same Western governments.

Gaza and the Limits of Western Consensus

The conflict in Gaza brought that tension into sharp focus.

On November 21, 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant concerning alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The allegations included the use of starvation as a method of warfare and other alleged crimes against civilians. The warrants are not findings of guilt, and Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and contested the allegations.

The proceedings created a significant diplomatic divide.

Some governments defended the independence of the ICC and the obligation of member states to cooperate with its processes. Others challenged the court’s jurisdiction or criticized its actions.

The United States, which is not an ICC member, opposed the warrants involving Israeli officials.

That opposition is not itself proof of legal hypocrisy. Governments may raise genuine jurisdictional objections, and international criminal law contains complex rules about territorial jurisdiction, admissibility and state consent.

But it raises an important consistency test.

If a government supports international criminal accountability in one conflict, what legal principles justify its opposition in another?

A coherent answer must rest on differences in law and evidence, not simply on whether the accused belongs to an allied government.

The International Court of Justice Is a Different Institution

The distinction between the ICC and the International Court of Justice is essential.

The ICC prosecutes individuals for international crimes. The ICJ decides disputes between states and gives advisory opinions on questions of international law.

In the case brought by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention, the ICJ ordered provisional measures intended to protect Palestinians in Gaza and preserve rights under the Convention.

Those orders were legally significant, but they did not amount to a final judgment that Israel had committed genocide.

The distinction matters because political debates frequently treat allegations, arrest warrants, provisional measures and final judgments as interchangeable.

They are not.

Respect for international justice requires taking serious allegations seriously while preserving the presumption of innocence and accurately describing what courts have actually decided.

That standard should apply to Russian, Israeli, American and all other officials alike.

Why Powerful Countries Have More Room to Resist

International law differs from domestic law in one particularly important respect.

There is no single global police force capable of enforcing every international judgment against every state.

The ICC depends heavily on cooperation from governments to execute arrest warrants. It cannot independently enter a country and arrest a suspect.

The United Nations Security Council has substantial authority concerning international peace and security, but its five permanent members possess veto powers that can prevent substantive resolutions from being adopted.

These structural realities create uneven enforcement.

A government with powerful diplomatic allies may be better positioned to resist pressure than a government with limited international influence.

Likewise, a country with substantial economic resources can impose costs on international institutions in ways that smaller states generally cannot.

The ICC’s own record illustrates the challenge. According to Reuters, the court has issued dozens of arrest warrants since its establishment, while numerous suspects remain at large. Its investigations have covered situations across Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America.

The problem is not that international law contains no rules for powerful states.

It is that enforcement often depends on political cooperation from those same states.

The United States and the Question of Jurisdiction

Washington’s opposition to the ICC has a longer history than the current dispute.

The United States participated in negotiations surrounding the court’s creation but never became a party to the Rome Statute.

American administrations have argued that the court should not exercise jurisdiction over American personnel without U.S. consent.

Supporters of the ICC respond that territorial jurisdiction can apply when alleged crimes occur on the territory of a state party, even if the accused individual comes from a non-member country.

This is a genuine legal disagreement with substantial political consequences.

The October 2026 sanctions have taken that disagreement into a new phase by targeting the court’s ability to operate through international commercial and technical relationships.

The Trump administration has defended its actions as necessary to protect American personnel and sovereignty. The ICC has condemned the measures as an attack on its independence, while European governments have considered ways to protect the institution’s operations.

The underlying issue is whether a powerful non-member state should be able to obstruct a court whose jurisdiction it disputes, particularly when other states have legally committed themselves to supporting that court.

Why the Global South Questions the Rules-Based Order

Criticism of selective enforcement is not confined to one region or political ideology.

Governments and commentators across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East have questioned why some conflicts generate extensive sanctions and diplomatic mobilization while others receive less consistent responses.

Some of these criticisms concern genuine differences in international attention and political leverage.

Others overlook important legal distinctions or the fact that international institutions have investigated officials from a wide range of countries.

Both points matter.

It is possible to acknowledge unequal enforcement without concluding that international law is entirely fictional.

It is also possible to defend international institutions while recognizing that their credibility suffers when powerful states attempt to influence which investigations can proceed.

The question for countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa is not simply whether to support or reject the Western-led international order.

It is how to strengthen institutions that protect sovereignty and civilian populations without allowing enforcement to become dependent on geopolitical alliances.

The Argument Against the Double-Standards Criticism

There is an important counterargument.

Not every difference in international response amounts to hypocrisy.

Conflicts differ in their causes, scale, legal circumstances and available evidence. Sanctions are political instruments, not automatic legal punishments. Governments also have legitimate obligations to protect their citizens and manage national security risks.

Moreover, international courts are not immune from criticism. Their decisions, jurisdictional interpretations and investigative practices can be challenged through legal processes.

The strongest defence of international law therefore does not require treating every court decision as beyond question.

It requires ensuring that criticism is principled, evidence-based and consistent.

A state may disagree with a court’s jurisdiction. That is different from using economic coercion to undermine the court’s ability to perform its functions.

Whether the current American sanctions cross that boundary is at the centre of the latest controversy.

What Happens When International Law Loses Credibility?

The consequences could extend far beyond the ICC.

International institutions depend not only on treaties and legal authority but also on public confidence that their rules serve a legitimate purpose.

When governments appear to support accountability only against adversaries, other states may become less willing to cooperate with investigations or enforcement measures.

That can make it harder to protect civilians, document atrocities and secure accountability after conflicts.

There is also a risk of creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

Powerful countries resist legal scrutiny. Smaller countries question the fairness of the system. International cooperation weakens, making enforcement even more dependent on political influence.

The result would not necessarily be a world without international law.

It could be a world in which international law remains formally intact but becomes increasingly difficult to enforce against those with the greatest power.

Can International Justice Survive Without the Support of Major Powers?

The latest confrontation between Washington and the ICC is an important test.

The court has 125 member states, but its effectiveness depends on practical cooperation, including funding, technology, banking, travel and the execution of warrants.

The United States remains a major financial and diplomatic power even outside the ICC’s membership.

European governments and other Rome Statute parties therefore face decisions about how to maintain the court’s operational independence while managing relations with Washington.

The issue is not whether international institutions should be immune from reform or scrutiny.

It is whether legal accountability can remain meaningful when governments are able to punish institutions for investigating politically sensitive cases.

That is a question with implications for every future conflict.

The Real Test of International Law

International law has never operated independently of political power.

Its development has been shaped by wars, diplomacy, treaties and the interests of states. Its enforcement has always depended to some extent on international cooperation.

But that does not make its principles irrelevant.

The prohibition on aggressive war, the protection of civilians and the accountability of individuals for grave crimes remain important legal commitments.

The challenge is ensuring that those commitments are not applied selectively.

Russia’s conduct in Ukraine must be judged according to the applicable law and evidence. Allegations concerning Israeli conduct in Gaza must be assessed under the same commitment to impartial justice, while respecting the differences between the cases. Allegations involving American personnel or officials from any other country deserve the same independent scrutiny where a court has lawful jurisdiction.

The principle is simple, even if its implementation is difficult.

A legal system cannot claim universal legitimacy while allowing political alliances alone to determine who faces investigation and who receives protection.

The question is not whether international law should apply to powerful countries.

It is whether the international community is willing to defend that principle when doing so becomes politically inconvenient.