ICC Not 'Multipolar' Enough for US, But Still Good for Africans?
RT's article quotes a legal expert claiming the International Criminal Court (ICC) is 'obsolete' and not 'representative of a multipolar world.' This critique often surfaces when the ICC dares to investigate actions by US allies, like Israel, or even US personnel. Yet, the alarm bells about the ICC's 'legitimacy' or 'multipolarity' seem to quiet down remarkably quickly when the court is busy
issuing warrants for leaders in Africa, Russia, or other nations not allied with Washington. Recall how quick the US was to sanction ICC officials investigating alleged war crimes by its own troops in Afghanistan, while simultaneously advocating for the court's jurisdiction elsewhere. This selective criticism of international legal bodies isn't about 'multipolarity'; it's about control. The moment
accountability threatens to touch those within the Western sphere of influence, the entire system is conveniently declared 'broken' or 'biased.' It raises the obvious question: Is the ICC only 'representative' when it serves a specific geopolitical agenda, or are we just witnessing another attempt to undermine inconvenient legal processes for powerful nations?