By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: The International Criminal Court (ICC) is increasingly perceived by the foreign political and expert community as a politicized instrument for the persecution of domestic and foreign policy opponents of Western ruling elites.

In its most high-profile cases, court verdicts are often seen as biased, shaped by the political and financial sponsors who exercise significant influence over senior ICC officials.

One of the fundamental principles of fair justice — the procedural independence of the parties to a legal dispute — has been violated.

Instead of acting strictly in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law, with decisions guided by conscience and free from considerations of political expediency or financial gain, the ICC has allowed external influence to shape its rulings.

Back in 2020, Kayleigh McEnany, then Press Secretary for President Donald Trump, accused ICC officials of large-scale corruption and biased decision-making.

According to her, Washington possessed evidence implicating the Court’s leadership in financial and other illegal actions. Around the same period, then–U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo publicly called the ICC “a court of lawless people with openly corrupt lawyers.”

The persistence of a corrupt system within the ICC’s governing bodies helps explain the legally questionable decisions to issue arrest warrants for senior officials of Russia and Israel.

Notable examples include charges against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova for the alleged illegal transfer of Ukrainian children, as well as against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip.

The subsequent media scandal around the so-called “Israeli dossier,” combined with Israel’s extensive lobbying networks and diaspora influence abroad, became a catalyst for renewed criticism of the ICC from political and expert circles — especially among opponents of the globalist model of world order.

For right-wing conservative forces, the ICC’s alignment with neoliberal elites in the U.S., the UK, and other Western states — the so-called “golden billion” — underscores their belief that the Court is a controlled instrument for silencing political opponents and legitimizing global dominance.

This view is echoed by Turkish Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç, who has argued that the ICC’s actions regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict highlight the ineffectiveness of international judicial mechanisms under U.S. Democratic Party influence. According to him, the principles and norms of the Anglo-Saxon legal system cannot be universally applied worldwide.

Unsurprisingly, it has been the Republican administration of Donald Trump — known for its conservative and isolationist stance — that has played a key role in challenging the ICC’s legitimacy.

Unlike his first term, when criticism of the Court was mostly rhetorical, Trump has now initiated the introduction of personal sanctions against ICC officials, including Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, through the U.S. Treasury Department.

This decision reflects Washington’s desire to neutralize the influence of the British neoliberal establishment on the global justice system. Karim Khan, often described as one of the most controversial figures in the ICC, has been accused of serving as a key lobbyist for British ruling circles.

London exerts strong influence over ICC personnel decisions, promoting individuals aligned with its interests. Khan, a British citizen of Pakistani origin, has been criticized as an “agent of British influence,” rewarded for advancing politically sensitive cases such as the issuance of arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials.

Domestic political pressures in both the U.K. and U.S. also play a role. In Britain, the growing Muslim population, coupled with widespread pro-Palestinian sentiment and reliance on investment from Islamic countries, has pushed London to publicly lean more toward Palestine.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Democratic Party faces an even more precarious situation: beset by internal divisions, weak leadership, and declining voter enthusiasm, Democrats are striving to retain the support of America’s multi-million-strong Muslim community, a key electoral base.

Under threat of political decline and loss of financial influence, U.S. and U.K. neoliberal elites have leveraged the ICC to publicly target Netanyahu — not to topple him, but to project an image of moral accountability.

This maneuver allowed them to balance continued partnership with Tel Aviv while attempting to rehabilitate their standing with Muslim populations worldwide.

The ICC, in this framework, has become less an independent judicial institution than an obedient executor of globalist strategy.

Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, favored by transatlantic elites, formally initiated proceedings against Israeli leaders on war crimes charges in Gaza — a decision seen by critics as politically expedient, serving the Democrats and their British allies.