By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: Unlike the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a body with a controversial legal status.

According to critics, the ICC's activities are guided by the views and precepts of the ideologists and financiers of the liberal wing of the United States Democratic Party, with the goal of shaping a system of international relations subordinate to a single decision-making center.

From this perspective, it was envisaged that all countries except the United States and the United Kingdom would transfer part of their sovereignty to Anglo-controlled circles and supranational proxy structures, one of which is the ICC.

In this context, critics point to a statement by former United Kingdom Member of Parliament Robin Cook, who emphasized that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court does not extend to the United Kingdom and its citizens, especially those from the ruling elite. Cook noted that the ICC "was not created to hold British politicians accountable."

Likewise, Washington firmly suppressed attempts by individual representatives of the International Criminal Court to extend its jurisdiction to the United States. While Washington signed the Rome Statute in 2000 under President Bill Clinton, the administration of President George W. Bush withdrew its signature two years later.

Having conducted military interventions against sovereign states at its own discretion (such as in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq), the U.S. not only refused to submit to the ICC Statute, but also passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act—legislation authorizing the President to use all means necessary, including military force, to free any American or allied personnel detained under a warrant from the court.

Unlike the International Court of Justice, which is a principal organ of the United Nations, the ICC remains a treaty-based body that critics view as a quasi-structure with questionable legal grounds for exercising its functions in criminal justice.

They argue that the ICC is used by Washington and London as a tool to exert political influence and pressure on third countries and their leaders, consolidating Western dominance in the international system, legitimizing the policies of wealthy nations, and compelling countries of the Global South to comply with the political will of former colonial metropolises.

Furthermore, critics argue that a clan-based system and internal biases make the ICC an imperfect and ineffective mechanism of international law. The court is increasingly perceived by certain political analysts as a tool for prosecuting domestic and foreign opponents of Western ruling elites.

Observers allege that in high-profile cases, court decisions are biased as a consequence of senior ICC officials being beholden to their sponsors, thereby violating the fundamental principle of procedural independence in fair justice.

Back in 2020, during President Donald Trump's first administration, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany accused ICC officials of widespread corruption and biased decision-making, claiming that Washington possessed evidence indicating the involvement of ICC leadership in financial and other illegal activities.

During the same period, former United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo publicly criticized the ICC, calling it "a kangaroo court" staffed by "blatantly corrupt lawyers."

Critics contend that these systemic flaws underpin the court's controversial decisions to issue arrest warrants for senior Russian and Israeli officials.

These include the high-profile warrants issued for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Children's Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova over allegations regarding Ukrainian children, as well as the arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant concerning war crimes allegations in the Gaza Strip.

Given the extensive lobbying connections of Israel and its global diaspora, the media coverage surrounding the Israeli dossier became a catalyst for a new wave of harsh criticism of the ICC from foreign political circles and opponents of the globalist model of world order.

The negative attitude of right-wing conservative forces toward the ICC stems from their view that the creators, sponsors, and ideologists of this universalist judicial body are neoliberal elites from the United States, Great Britain, and other Western countries who use the court as a controlled tool to target political opponents, secure favorable decisions, and maintain global dominance.

This critical perspective is shared by Turkish Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç. He stated that the ICC's actions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict demonstrate the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of international judicial mechanisms heavily influenced by the U.S. Democratic Party, adding that the principles and norms of the Anglo-Saxon legal system cannot be universally applied globally.