In May 2024, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, requested an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This decision was regarded as a historic turning point by the international community. However, the uncertainties surrounding the enforceability of the decision have drawn attention to the ICC’s limited structural and political authority. In particular, the Court’s failure to implement decisions against Western-backed leaders in practice calls into question its proclaimed motto of “universal justice.” This analysis evaluates the non-enforcement of the arrest request for Netanyahu in light of the ICC’s institutional weaknesses, the risk of political instrumentalization, and the perception of double standards, and directly questions the legitimacy of the institution.
Structural Limitations and Enforcement Power of the ICC
The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is defined by the Rome Statute of 1998. According to this document, the ICC holds direct jurisdiction only over states that have ratified the Statute. The Court does not possess any enforcement authority or its own police force. Therefore, the execution of arrest warrants depends entirely on the voluntary cooperation of states.[i]
The Rome Statute also provides two main mechanisms through which the Court may exercise jurisdiction over non-member states. The first is when the concerned state grants the ICC special jurisdiction. The second is when the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) refers a situation involving a non-party state to the Court for investigation. However, this latter route is severely limited by the veto power of the Council’s permanent members; the cases of Sudan (2005) and Libya (2011) are exceptional instances.[ii]
In the specific case of Israel, the situation is more complex. Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and therefore does not fall under the Court’s direct jurisdiction. However, Palestine’s accession to the ICC in 2015 granted the Court indirect jurisdiction, provided that the alleged crimes were committed on Palestinian territory.[iii]
Legal and Ethical Dimensions of the Arrest Warrant Request for Netanyahu
The arrest warrant requested by ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan against Netanyahu is based on Israeli military operations conducted in the Gaza Strip during the 2023–2024 period. In particular, airstrikes targeting densely populated civilian areas, as well as attacks on hospitals, schools, and humanitarian convoys, fall under the categories of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Additionally, the comprehensive blockade imposed on Gaza has been alleged to constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, as it obstructs civilian access to essential food, medicine, and water.[1]
Within this framework, Netanyahu’s legal responsibility has been linked both to his direct orders and to his failure to prevent or halt these crimes in his capacity as a high-ranking political leader within the chain of command. Under ICC practice, senior state officials bear a special responsibility due to their “knowledge” of crimes and their “duty to prevent” them.[2] Although Israel and its supporters have invoked the state’s “right to self-defense” in response to these allegations, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office has stated that this argument is not valid under international law, emphasizing that the disproportionate use of force against civilians can never be considered legitimate under any circumstances.[3]
Criticism of Selective Justice Directed at the ICC
The decisions of the International Criminal Court have sparked intense debates due to their political consequences. In particular, the ICC’s past rulings against African states have fueled criticism that the Court practices selective justice rather than universal justice. The 2009 arrest warrant issued for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir failed to be enforced due to collective resistance from the African Union, with many African countries continuing to host Bashir. Similarly, the 2010 case against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the withdrawal of witnesses.[4]
The 2023 arrest warrant issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine was welcomed by Western states, with many countries including Germany and the United Kingdom openly supporting the decision. However, a year later, when a similar arrest request was issued against Netanyahu on comparable charges, these same countries, particularly the United States and some EU members questioned the legitimacy of the ruling and increased political pressure on the Court. This situation underscores that “who the decision targets” has become more significant than the content of the decision itself.
The ICC’s principle of legal equality is undermined by the de facto judicial immunity enjoyed by powerful states or Western allies. The Court’s claim to be an “independent and universal” institution of criminal justice is seriously damaged by these political inconsistencies.[5] Within the EU, this perception of double standards is also pronounced. While Germany defends the arrest request as a requirement of international law, actors like France and Italy have remained silent for political reasons. Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, it recognizes the Court’s legitimacy only insofar as it aligns with its strategic interests.[6]
Conclusion The arrest warrant request against Netanyahu serves as a litmus test for the legitimacy of the ICC. While the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over grave violations such as war crimes and crimes against humanity is a fundamental requirement of universal justice, the application of this jurisdiction exclusively to geopolitically weaker actors severely undermines legal equality. The double standards displayed in favor of Western allies contravene the ICC’s principles of universality and impartiality, eroding the institution’s legal enforcement capacity. If high-ranking actors like Netanyahu are exempted from accountability, the future of international criminal justice will face not only a legal but also a moral collapse
[1] Amnesty International. (2024). Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories: War crimes in Gaza. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/7034/2024/en/, (Date Accessed: 17.07.2025).; Human Rights Watch. (2024). Israel/Gaza: Widespread unlawful strikes on civilians. https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/01/15/israel-gaza-unlawful-strikes, (Date Accessed: 17.07.2025).
[2] International Commission of Jurists. (2024). Accountability for atrocities in Gaza: Legal responsibilities of commanders. https://www.icj.org/gaza-legal-responsibility-2024/, (Date Accessed: 17.07.2025).
[3] Amnesty International. a.g.e., (Date Accessed: 17.07.2025).
[4] Mégret, F. (2020). Beyond “end times”: The International Criminal Court’s changing identity. Leiden Journal of International Law, 33(4), 851–874. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156520000454
[5] Ibid.
[6] Akande, opcit, (Date Accessed: 17.07.2025).
[i] Schabas, W. A. (2016). An introduction to the International Criminal Court (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Akande, D. (2021). The jurisdiction of the ICC over nationals of non-parties: Legal basis and limits. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(2), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab021
