Another Travesty of Justice at the ICC

The ICC Has Become a Kangaroo Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC), established by the 1998 Rome Statute, was never granted jurisdiction over citizens of non-signatory states. According to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties—binding international customary law—the ICC cannot impose its authority on third-party states or their nationals.

By issuing arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—citizens of a non-member state—the ICC has violated the Vienna Convention and overstepped its legal mandate. This reckless overreach, driven by political motives, demands accountability.

The United States should sanction the ICC, including its judges, prosecutor, and so-called “legal experts,” until these illegitimate warrants are withdrawn and international law respected.

1. A Moral Failure

Since 2002, the ICC has charged 69 individuals but convicted only 11—six for core crimes, mainly African militia leaders. Dozens remain at large or were wrongly charged. Many endured years of detention before acquittal. The Court, meant to serve justice, has become a tool for political manipulation—now wielded against Israeli leaders by Palestinian authorities, the ICC prosecutor, and Islamic states as part of a broader campaign to delegitimize Israel.

The aim: issuing false, trumped-up and clearly biased allegations against elected Israeli officials and to prevent them from engaging internationally, particularly amid war and after the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre.

2. A Financial Failure

With a bloated bureaucracy of over 900 staff across multiple global offices, the ICC’s budget has soared from €53 million in 2004 to €195 million in 2025. Yet in two decades, it has convicted only six individuals of core crimes—amounting to roughly €2.5 billion per conviction. ICC member states should reconsider whether this institution deserves their funding or whether those resources would be better directed toward actual victims of atrocities.

3. A Legal Farce

In November 2024, the ICC issued secret arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The charges—”starvation as warfare,” “attacks on civilians,” and “murder”—lack credible evidence. Humanitarian aid is consistently diverted by Hamas, and famine claims have been exposed as exaggerated.¹

The ICC ignored Israel’s efforts to protect civilians, often used by the Hamas terror organization, as human shields, and instead accepted the false narrative pushed by Hamas and its allies. Even Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that Israel does not qualify as an occupying power in Gaza and that halting aid is lawful when it risks aiding hostile forces.²

The ICC’s claim of impartiality is laughable. It issued a posthumous warrant for dead terrorist Mohammed Deif, but ignored living Hamas leaders still holding hostages, and did nothing against Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas—despite complaints filed over his “pay for slay“ policy!

In targeting Israel’s elected leaders while turning a blind eye to terror, the ICC reveals its true face: a politicized, legally baseless, and morally bankrupt institution.

ICC Arrest Warrants Violate International Law

1. Violation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969):

Israel, like the United States, Russia, China, and others, is not a party to the Rome Statute and cannot be bound by it without consent, as per Articles 26, 34, and 35 of the Vienna Convention. The ICC acted beyond its jurisdiction in pursuing Israeli nationals, violating the principle of pacta sunt servanda (treaties bind only consenting states).

2. Violation of the Rome Statute Itself:

The Rome Statute allows the ICC to act only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Israel has an active and functioning judiciary. Moreover, while claiming statehood, the PA has not proved its status as a party to the ICC statute, as a state under international law. It cannot grant the court jurisdiction over territory over which it cannot prove sovereignty. Furthermore it lacks legal authority under the Oslo Accords to transfer any form of jurisdiction over Israelis. On the contrary the Oslo Accords prevent them to judge Israelis. The ICC ignored these legal boundaries and acted prematurely.

3. Diplomatic Immunity Breach:

The ICC’s request for Netanyahu’s arrest in Hungary violates Article 98(1) of the Rome Statute and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protect state officials’ immunity unless waived by the home state.

4. Breach of Judicial Impartiality and Fair Trial Standards:

The arrest warrants were issued ex parte without a fair hearing. The judges and prosecutor involved are alleged to lack impartiality and independence due to political influences and personal or religious biases, emanating from their home countries (Benin, France, Slovenia) undermining Articles 40–42 of the Rome Statute and accepted and universal standards set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as in the U.S. Constitution.

5. Political and Religious Bias Allegations:

The backgrounds and political affiliations of Prosecutor Karim Khan ³ and judges Reine Alapini Gansou, ⁴ Nicolas Guillou, ⁵ and Beti Hohler ⁶ suggest conflicts of interest, lack of independence and impartiality, and potential bias against Israel. Past statements and affiliations are cited as evidence that they could not be expected to act impartially.

6. Call for Sanctions and Reversal:

The U.S. Executive Order of February 6, 2025, sanctioned Khan. The text urges expanding these sanctions to include ICC judges and legal advisors and calls on state parties to pressure the ICC to annul the arrest warrants and respect the legal protections of non-party states under international law.

ICC Jurisdiction and the Status of Palestine – A Violation of International Law:

Recognizing “Palestine” as a state with authority over Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is totally incompatible with accepted international legal principles, documents and historical claims.

As is widely acknowledged, these areas were designated as the national home of the Jewish people under the 1922 British Mandate, which remains a valid legal instrument under international treaties, including the 1920 San Remo Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate.

Ignoring this, the UN Secretary General, followed by the ICC, accepted Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute in 2015. Accordingly, the Palestinian claim to statehood and authority to confer jurisdiction to the ICC lacks any validity and legal basis.

The Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, based on the false assumption that Gaza is Palestinian sovereign territory, is therefore legally flawed.

The Gaza Strip, considered part of the Jewish National Home under the Mandate, has never been legally recognized as part of a Palestinian state. On the contrary, the PLO and Israel, under the 1993-5 Oslo Accords, agreed that the area would be under a temporary administration by the PA pending agreement on the permanent status of the territories. Final clause Article XXXI (6) of the 1995 Interim Agreement states that “Neither party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions.”

The ICC, under Khan and previous Prosecutor Fathi Bensouda has clearly failed to uphold impartiality, allowing political agendas to influence decisions. The Court’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood for the purpose of prosecution, despite lacking legal basis, violates the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Rome Statute.

The Court’s actions aim to undermine Israel’s legitimate right to act in self-defense and to conduct international diplomacy, particularly vis-a-vis groups like Hamas and other Iran-backed proxies. The recent decision by the ICC Appeal Chamber to remand the jurisdictional issue does not undo the damage.

The ICC has been co-opted by members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), compromising its neutrality. Judges and prosecutors involved in these decisions, including Khan and others, should be disqualified for their lack of independence.

The United States sanctioned Khan. Then it sanctioned Bensouda and the judges in the U.S. Case, Reine Alapini Gansou and Beti Hohler. Surprisingly the French Judge, Nicolas Guillou, was not sanctioned.

The United States should expand sanctions on the ICC and its officials until international law is respected and the politically motivated actions against Israel are reversed. It is time to end the misuse of international legal institutions for political warfare.

Dr. Michael Calvo is an expert in international law. Doctor of Law of International Organizations and International Economic Relations, honorary member of the Paris Bar and member of the Jerusalem Bar, he was a Member of the International Court of Arbitration (1996-2006).

Dr. Karin Calvo-Goller, is a senior lecturer, Doctor of Law of International Organizations and International Economic Relations, member of the Jerusalem Bar. She is the author of two books on the ICC procedure: “La procédure et la jurisprudence de la Cour pénale internationale (prefaced by Pr. Robert Badinter – former President of the French Constitutional Court) published in 2012 by lextenso editions and The Trial Proceedings of the international Criminal Court – ICTY (Ex-Yugoslavia) and ICTR (Rwanda) Precedents, published in 2006 par Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

* * *

Notes