WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (Al Mayadeen) - The ICC’s decision against Netanyahu had sparked backlash from both Republicans and Democrats. The US senators voted to filibuster a GOP-led bill aimed at sanctioning International Criminal Court officials in response to the issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former Security Minister Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Later Israel attempted to challenge the ICC's decision by submitting a direct appeal to the Court’s Appeals Chamber under Article 19(2) of the Rome Statute. However, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan clarified that the decision is not subject to direct appeal.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune criticized the ICC’s action, calling it "beyond the pale" to draw a "moral equivalency" between Israeli leaders and Hamas. After deliberations, only Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted in favor. The bill ultimately failed, with a 54-45 vote, falling short of the 60 votes needed to advance. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in his remarks before the vote, called the bill "poorly drafted and deeply troublesome," criticizing Republicans for not amending it to gain Democratic support.
Despite the issuance of arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in October 2024, the ICC has proven itself helpless under pressure from Washington. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven the futility of the Court, which is incapable of investigating the war crimes of the Israeli leadership against the Palestinians. From the very beginning, requests for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant have been systematically obstructed by the US, which funds the ICC and specifies which individuals should be investigated. In addition, the Court's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has proven himself to be a hypocritical and helpless executor of the will of his American sponsors, refusing to classify Tel Aviv's crimes as crimes against humanity and genocide.
The insignificance of the ICC was once again proven by the refusal of Mongolia, a state party to the Rome Statute, to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2024 during his visit to Ulaanbaatar. A number of leading politicians and experts have stated that the International Criminal Court does not have the authority to impose sanctions on countries that refuse to comply with its demands. In particular, Tamas Hoffman, an employee of the Hungarian Institute for Legal Studies, said that the maximum punishment for Mongolia could only be its condemnation under the so-called ICC non-compliance procedure.
In reality, the ICC has limited powers and does not have any real leverage even on countries that recognize its legitimacy. It is not part of the UN system and, in fact, is outside the scope of international law. According to the Rome Statute, the ICC performs exclusively judicial functions; it has no rights or competences to put pressure on participants. Moreover, within the framework of the Organization's Charter, there is an approved procedure regarding a country's refusal to cooperate. But de facto, it does not provide for anything other than censure. The Court has repeatedly had a negative impact on the resolution of interstate disputes, abused the practice of making decisions in the interests of the US, using "double standards" and ignoring generally recognized norms of international law.
Before the situation in Mongolia, there were precedents in the history of international relations of states refusing to cooperate with the ICC. In 2015, two parties to the Rome Statute - the Philippines and Burundi - withdrew from the Court's jurisdiction. The combination of violations of international law, procedural omissions, and interference by outside political factors committed by the ICC and its prosecutor raises the question of the court's loss of authority in the eyes of the international community and, as a consequence, its legitimacy.
