International Justice under threat:
how it can still contribute to peace
The recent arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court for Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu mark a historic milestone in international justice. For the first time, the Court has directly targeted sitting leaders of powerful nations involved in two of the most prominent conflicts of our time: Ukraine and Gaza. While these indictments have sparked intense controversy and opposition from the countries of the accused and their allies, they have done little to alleviate the suffering of victims. Both leaders remain free, though with potential restrictions on their international travel, as military operations continue.
This puts the very existence of the International Criminal Court at risk.
However, this should not eclipse a subtler global trend: despite occasional setbacks, local justice mechanisms—rooted in local ownership—continue to grow steadily, addressing past abuses and atrocities as an essential part of building peaceful societies.
Breaking the tradition of victor’s justice
The effectiveness of international courts is based on power dynamics, functioning only when the pursuit of justice aligns with state interests. This has been a constant throughout the history of international justice. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials following World War II successfully prosecuted senior officials from Nazi Germany and Japan—but only because the Allied forces had the authority and willingness to enforce the rulings. Similarly, the UN-backed tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s secured numerous convictions thanks to consistent support from the UN Security Council.
When enforcement does not serve the interests of major powers, however, international law often fails. The selective application of legal norms highlights the well-known problem of “victor’s justice.” For instance, the Tokyo Trials notably avoided scrutinising the clearest violation of international humanitarian law during World War II—namely, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Similarly, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) steered clear of investigating controversial NATO actions during the Balkan conflicts.
The International Criminal Court was established as an independent tribunal under the 1998 Rome Statute, an international treaty that countries join voluntarily—unlike earlier tribunals created by the UN Security Council—with the aim of overcoming such double standards. Yet, political power and national interests continue to shape its trajectory. Since its entry into force in 2002, the Court has disproportionately focused on cases from the Global South, still struggling to apprehend suspects or secure convictions, with few exceptions. At the same time, conflicts involving powerful countries have largely remained outside its purview.
An existential risk for the International Criminal Court
Therefore, the recent arrest warrants for Putin and Netanyahu mark a bold shift, signalling the Court’s willingness to confront major states. This reflects its commitment to impartiality but also exposes its limitations. Countries like Russia and the United States—neither of which are parties to the Rome Statute—persist in challenging the Court’s legitimacy.
Breaking the pattern of victor’s justice, the arrest warrants for Putin and Netanyahu expose the Court to significant risks. Judge Tomoko Akane recently disclosed that the Court has faced threats, external pressure, and even acts of sabotage following its latest decisions.
Western reactions to these developments have been inconsistent. While many states enthusiastically backed the warrant against Putin, some are expressing reservations about supporting similar action against Netanyahu. Furthermore, Italy recently failed to enforce an international warrant issued by the Court for Al-Masri—the director of a Libyan detention centre accused of murder, torture, rape, and sexual violence—and arranged his return to Libya aboard an aircraft operated by the national secret services. These incidents highlight the ongoing development of overcoming the historical problem of victor’s justice while exposing the double standards of Western states and putting the existence of the International Criminal Court at risk. Meanwhile, a quieter movement toward addressing past international crimes and human rights violations is thriving. Rooted in local ownership and restorative justice, it aims to build peaceful and just societies.
Alternative avenues for justice and peace
As the global justice system struggles with enforcement and impartiality, localised mechanisms have emerged as promising alternatives. Designed to address the unique needs of individual nations, these approaches emphasise reconciliation and democratic renewal. Harvard scholar Kathryn Sikkink referred to this phenomenon as a justice cascade, noting the rise of truth commissions and domestic tribunals in countries undergoing post-conflict or transitional periods.
Examples abound. In Tunisia, Colombia, Nepal, and The Gambia, efforts to address war crimes and human rights violations have become cornerstones of peacebuilding and democratisation. These initiatives prioritise restorative justice, focusing on victim-centred outcomes rather than punitive measures. For instance, Guinea’s National Reconciliation Commission has worked to compensate victims of large-scale violence, following recommendations laid out in its final report. Even in the face of a 2021 coup, which disrupted the country’s democratic progress, the process persisted. Moussa Dadis Camara, the military leader responsible for the 2009 “stadium massacre” in Conakry, was convicted of crimes against humanity. Such alternative models aim to address the root causes of conflict, often tied to social or economic inequality, in the hope of preventing future violence.
This evolving approach to justice diverges from traditional frameworks focussing exclusively on punishing perpetrators and does not necessarily contribute to peacebuilding. Instead, it emphasises reconciliation and rebuilding trust within fractured communities, enabling societies to transition from authoritarianism to democracy or from war to peace. Offenders are encouraged to acknowledge their actions, issue apologies, and contribute to restorative efforts. Punishment, though not excluded, is reserved for the most severe cases. Ultimately, this model seeks to create fairer and more peaceful societies by addressing systemic issues and ensuring that past atrocities are not repeated. International justice is rarely immediate in its impact, but its long-term evolution cannot be underestimated. Over the last two decades, justice has substantially become an integral part of global peacebuilding efforts.
