In the wake of Israel’s intensified ethnic cleansing in Gaza, many have looked to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a key arbiter to navigate this conflict. On Nov. 21, 2024, the Court issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, signaling the tension between Israel’s actions in the Gaza strip and international human rights law. Yet, many in the United States not only rejected the court’s ruling but actively worked against it. From the earlier attempts to sanction the ICC to President Trump now declaring the situation a national security threat, the U.S. has displayed an extreme aversion to any implementation of international law.
While many remain skeptical of the impact the ICC’s ruling will have on the conflict in Gaza, the U.S.’s subsequent decisions are demonstrative of a legacy of hypocrisy. It is praised as a beacon of freedom and democracy, yet when its allies are criticized for actions that obstruct those very values, it turns a blind eye and sequesters efforts for an international system built through multilateralism rather than unipolar hegemony. This is not a new phenomenon; from the U.S.’s inception, it has built a necessary attachment to control that is disguised under the labels of “democracy” and “freedom.”
This hypocrisy is also evident in the history of U.S. relations with the ICC. Despite the U.S.’s current hostility towards the court, it has historically supported ICC investigations that align with its foreign policy interests. This includes backing cases and arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin, as well as various investigations into war crimes in Africa and the Middle East. In these cases, the U.S.’s support of the ICC’s authority has not only displayed a conflict between its role as a “global policeman” and action taken in relation to human rights abuse but has also actively hurt justice efforts in areas such as Ukraine.
The immediate reaction to this is to demand that the U.S. join the ICC and recognize its jurisdiction. While these calls are well-intentioned, they do not go far enough — simply asking for the U.S. to join the court fails to realize that this does not disrupt the way the U.S. controls and exerts power globally. This is not to say it does nothing, but rather that there would remain other routes through which the U.S. would be able to crush attempts at multilateralism and prevent the influence of other countries from becoming prominent. This was seen in the declaring of South Africa’s ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool, as a persona non grata due to his criticism of the Make America Great movement. This effectively expels Rasool from the U.S., and is intended to humiliate him on an international level while discrediting his comments regarding Palestine and growing white supremacy in America.
We must move beyond balancing US power and instead push for foreign policy changes that sacrifice hegemony in favor of multilateral control. When the U.S. sanctioned and cut funding to South Africa due to it challenging Israel’s genocide at the International Court of Justice, for instance, it became clear that status quo U.S. foreign policy is entirely self-interested rather than being focused on bringing genuine accountability to itself and others.
Creating change requires supporting international shifts in geopolitics; the U.S. does not need to be the world’s policeman, and we cannot continue to support it as such when it consistently disallows itself and its allies from facing investigation. While the first steps can include pressing for the U.S. to join international courts like the ICC, we should not stop there — there needs to be mass condemnation towards actions such as the U.S.’s towards South Africa. The U.S. cannot be allowed to choose when it gets to support the rule of international law and when it doesn’t.
The possibility of real international shifts in politics is slim but still worth directing our political energy towards. At some level, these types of changes must start with individuals changing their belief as to how the world operates. We need to forfeit our conceptions of the U.S. as a necessary global power and focus on equalizing it with countries in the Global South. This can look like electing leaders less interested in restoring American primacy and instead focused on how we can effectively collaborate with other countries to create international human rights law that holds everyone accountable. This manifests as being willing to move away from the idea that the U.S. must dominate through hard or soft power, and instead allowing for a geopolitical sphere built through multilateral cooperation.