The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, announced last week that he would temporarily step down amid an ongoing probe over sexual abuse allegations. Behind the scandalous headlines, however, lies another unsettling question: Is the court — long billed as the world’s watchdog against war crimes and genocide — truly capable of enforcing justice?

Almost 23 years in operation, over $2 billion in government funding from 123 member states that signed the founding Rome Statute, and dozens of press conferences touting its noble mission, the court — of which the United States is not a signatory — has produced just 11 convictions and four acquittals. Meanwhile, mass murderers roam free, authoritarian leaders thumb their noses at the West, and dictators from Damascus to Pyongyang sleep soundly at night.

“The ICC was founded with the lofty ideal of ensuring global accountability for international crimes. The possibility of criminal charges against individuals can help deter war crimes,” Research Manager at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, David May, tells The New York Sun. 

“However, the court has proven to be a feckless instrument of international politics rather than a powerful tool of international justice. With a $2 billion budget since its founding, the court has only convicted (only a handful of) individuals, all African and one of whom was later acquitted.”

The Dream and the Reality

The ICC was created in 2002 by the Rome Statute in the aftermath of the Yugoslav wars and Rwanda’s genocide. The idea was to establish a permanent international tribunal that could step in when nations failed to prosecute the most heinous crimes — genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The reality has been far messier. Over its two-decade history, the ICC has initiated 17 investigations, issued 42 arrest warrants, and secured 11 convictions. Notably, only five of these convictions pertain to the court’s core crimes — war crimes and crimes against humanity — and all involve mid-level militia leaders from African nations, not the tyrants pulling the strings.

Even the convictions it has secured have taken years — sometimes over a decade — to be finalized. In one notable case, Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga was convicted in 2012 after a six-year trial for his mass recruitment of child soldiers. His sentence? Fourteen years — less time than many serve for nonviolent drug offenses in the United States. 

What has all this cost? According to the ICC’s financial reports, its annual budget has climbed to over $180 million, with total costs since its creation now exceeding $2 billion. The court allocated approximately $174 million of its annual budget to staffing and operational costs. That includes 900 personnel from over 100 countries, which constitutes about 83 percent of its total expenditures and reflects its international mandate and diverse operational needs.

That’s taxpayer money — mostly from democratic, law-abiding nations in Europe, Canada, Japan, and elsewhere — being funneled into an institution that spends more time litigating legal minutiae than defending human life.

“On the plus side, it’s a symbol of accountability, putting tyrants on notice — think Putin’s warrant for snatching Ukrainian kids,” Managing Director of Nestpoint Associates, John Thomas, tells the Sun. 

“But the cons are glaring. With $2 billion spent, it’s a bureaucratic black hole, securing just a handful of convictions in 23 years. It’s selective, hammering African states while ignoring China’s Uyghur camps or Iran’s terror networks. This double standard undermines the ICC’s claim of equal justice and fuels distrust among Americans who see it as a globalist hit job.”

Where the Big Fish Swim Free

For a court that claims to deliver universal justice, the ICC has been strikingly selective in whom it pursues and whom it doesn’t. To date, the court has not successfully prosecuted a single major figure from Communist China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, or the former regime in Syria — despite overwhelming evidence of state-sponsored atrocities in all five countries.

China’s forced sterilization and internment of Uyghur Muslims? Off the docket. North Korea’s labor camps and state executions? Ignored. Iran’s brutal crackdown on dissidents? Uncharged. Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs against civilians in Syria? Not a single ICC warrant.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the court took over a year to issue an arrest warrant for President Putin — a move that, while welcome in much of the West, is unenforceable in most of the world and has changed little on the ground. Mr. Putin still travels freely within much of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The ICC has no police force and no muscle to back its rulings — only paper and press releases.

A Court of Double Standards

The ICC has often focused its efforts on cases involving weaker or politically isolated regimes while facing greater challenges when addressing actions by more powerful states or leaders.

Nine of the court’s first 10 investigations were centered in Africa, prompting backlash from leaders who accused the court of racial bias and neocolonial overreach. In 2016, the African Union called for a mass withdrawal from the court, citing “selective justice.”

Mr. May, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said that “the accusation of a hyperfocus on Africa might have played a role in the ICC’s increased interest in Israel,” calling the case against Israeli leaders “a travesty from the beginning.”

The court’s decision late last year to impose arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders over alleged war crimes in Gaza has sparked global controversy, deepening the debate over the court’s impartiality and jurisdiction.

“The Palestinian Authority lacks the basic elements of statehood, but that did not prevent the ICC from recognizing the ‘State of Palestine’ as a party to the Rome Statute. Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, and it has a robust and independent justice system, but that did not stop the court from determining that it has jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed by Israelis,” Mr. May explained. 

“The ICC’s principle of ‘complementarity’ holds that the court can only intervene when a state lacks the ability or the will to prosecute crimes within its domain. But the court created a separate standard for Israel.”

He also pointed out that Mr. Khan, the erstwhile chief prosecutor, was working with the Israelis regarding allegations of war crimes committed during the war that followed Hamas’s atrocities of October 7, 2023, and was scheduled to visit Israel when he abruptly canceled the trip and announced the arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders. 

“Israel has eliminated all of the Hamas leaders who received arrest warrants, so only the arrest warrants against the Israeli prime minister and then defense minister are still relevant,” Mr. May said. “And by issuing simultaneous arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders, Khan drew a false parallel between the Hamas perpetrators of the October 7 atrocities and their victims.”

Nestpoint’s Mr. Thomas said the Court “picks low-hanging fruit in Africa or targets Israel to score points with certain crowds.”

“The court has long been afraid to prosecute leaders of major powers, such as China, for the many international crimes they have committed,” he continued. “The Putin arrest warrant reflects international public opinion, and unless Chinese leaders are also in the docket, there is no indication that power no longer trumps justice at the ICC.”

Further illuminating the dysfunction, the court’s member states aren’t willing to uphold the ICC’s tenants. For one, Sudan’s former president, Omar al-Bashir, wanted by the court since 2009 for genocide and other crimes in Darfur, has spent over a decade evading arrest — traveling freely to Rome Statute member states, including South Africa, Jordan, Uganda, and Kenya, none of which detained him despite two warrants, underscoring the court’s limited enforcement power.

More recently, Hungary has been investigated by the ICC for refusing to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu during a visit despite an active warrant. Mongolia also allowed Mr. Putin to travel freely, ignoring the court’s warrant against him. Similarly, Italy resisted the court’s cooperation in the case of a Libyan suspect. 

Why America Stayed Out

The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute due to longstanding concerns about national sovereignty and the potential prosecution of United States personnel. President Clinton signed the treaty in 2000 but declined to submit it to the Senate. In 2002, President George W. Bush formally “unsigned” it. 

Since then successive administrations have maintained a cautious stance. While the Obama administration engaged with the court in limited ways, such as supporting cases against African warlords, it stopped short of full membership, citing jurisdictional overreach and protection of U.S. troops.

Tensions peaked under President Trump, who imposed sanctions on Court officials in 2020 after the court investigated alleged war crimes by United States personnel in Afghanistan. Shortly after resuming office this year, Mr. Trump issued an Executive Order targeting Mr. Khan and others following arrest warrants against Israeli leaders over the Gaza conflict. 

His administration argues that the ICC had no authority over non-member states like the United States or its allies. 

“The U.S. should keep the ICC at arm’s length and push for better options,” Mr. Thomas said. “As a non-signatory, we’ve got no business letting a court we don’t control mess with our allies or our interests. Trump’s sanctions on Khan for targeting Netanyahu were spot-on — send a message that we won’t tolerate bias.”

Critics say the move undermines global justice efforts, while supporters see it as necessary to defend United States sovereignty. 

Karim Khan’s Questionable Record

When Mr. Khan took over as the ICC prosecutor in 2021, he was hailed as a reformer — a no-nonsense British barrister with experience at other international tribunals. Under his leadership, the court launched a long-overdue investigation into war crimes in Ukraine and made noise about reactivating cases in Sudan.

Mr. Khan, however, has been criticized for falling into the same trap as his predecessors: choosing flashy, high-profile cases while letting less politically expedient ones gather dust.

His decision to deprioritize investigations into Venezuela — despite overwhelming evidence of torture and extrajudicial killings by Nicolás Maduro’s regime — baffled human rights observers. Meanwhile, his office made little progress on longstanding inquiries into the Rohingya genocide in Burma or the horrors inflicted by the Assad regime in Syria.

The ICC’s defenders argue that without a permanent court, there would be no accountability. Ultimately, however, many agree that something has to change. 

“The idea of global justice is noble,” Mr. May said. “But it has been co-opted by the politics of the mob.”