The International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002 as a beacon of global justice, was meant to hold perpetrators of heinous crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—accountable, regardless of their status or origin.
Yet, over two decades later, the ICC’s track record reveals a troubling pattern of selective justice, particularly against African nations, and a susceptibility to manipulation by Western powers, notably the United States.
This systemic bias has eroded the court’s credibility, prompting countries like Hungary to withdraw from its jurisdiction, signaling a broader crisis in international justice.
A Disproportionate Focus on Africa
Since its inception, the ICC has initiated investigations in 25 countries, with 12 of them in Africa—representing nearly half of its caseload.
Every one of the court’s first eight investigations, spanning from 2002 to 2013, targeted African nations: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic, Darfur/Sudan, Kenya, Libya, Ivory Coast, and Mali.
Critics, including the African Union (AU), have long pointed out this glaring imbalance. In 2011, AU Chairman Jean Ping decried the ICC’s “discriminatory” practices, noting its failure to investigate atrocities in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Palestine, where Western powers have significant involvement.
While ICC defenders argue that African cases are often self-referred by the countries themselves, this explanation oversimplifies the issue. Many African states, eager to align with international norms or under pressure from Western donors, have referred cases to the ICC, only to find their sovereignty undermined when the court targets their leaders.
For instance, Kenya’s 2007-2008 post-election violence led to ICC charges against then-President Uhuru Kenyatta, despite Kenya’s own judicial processes being underway.
The case, later dropped, fueled perceptions that the ICC was meddling in African politics at the behest of external powers.
Meanwhile, atrocities in non-African regions often escape scrutiny.
The ICC’s reluctance to pursue cases in Iraq, where British and American forces were implicated, or in Afghanistan, where U.S. actions were deprioritized in 2021, underscores a double standard.
In 2020, the ICC declined to investigate alleged war crimes by UK forces in Iraq, citing insufficient evidence, despite its own findings suggesting otherwise. This selective enforcement has led scholars like Asad Kiyani to argue that the ICC’s focus on Africa reflects a broader “Western exceptionalism” in international criminal law, where powerful states shield themselves from accountability.
Western Manipulation and Political Influence
The ICC’s susceptibility to Western manipulation is rooted in its structural vulnerabilities. The United Nations Security Council, dominated by veto-wielding powers like the United States, Russia, and China—none of which are ICC members—can refer cases to the court.
This mechanism has been used to target African leaders, as seen in the referrals of Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, both of whom faced ICC indictments following Security Council resolutions. Yet, efforts to refer non-African cases, such as Syria, have been consistently blocked by vetoes, highlighting how geopolitical interests shape the court’s agenda.
The United States, despite not being an ICC member, exerts significant influence over the court. U.S. policymakers have historically viewed the ICC with suspicion, fearing it could target American citizens.
In 1998, Senator Rod Grams warned that the ICC could be “subject to political manipulation,” a concern echoed by African critics who see the court as a tool for advancing Western interests.
The U.S. has imposed sanctions on ICC officials, notably in 2020 and 2025, to deter investigations into American and Israeli actions, further undermining the court’s independence.
These sanctions, coupled with the U.S.’s vocal support for ICC actions against African leaders, reveal a hypocritical stance: the court is legitimate when it serves Western interests but “illegitimate” when it threatens allies like Israel.
The ICC’s funding structure also raises concerns about Western influence. The court relies heavily on contributions from Western states, which can create pressure to align with their priorities.
In 2022, Amnesty International warned that “earmarked” funding for specific investigations, such as Ukraine, risks allowing powerful states to steer the court’s focus, exacerbating perceptions of selective justice.
This financial leverage ensures that African cases, often less politically sensitive for Western donors, remain the court’s primary focus.
Hungary’s Withdrawal and the ICC’s Declining Legitimacy
The ICC’s biased practices and susceptibility to manipulation have not gone unnoticed, leading to growing disillusionment among member states.
Hungary’s decision to withdraw from the ICC in April 2025, announced during a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a case in point.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán justified the move by calling the ICC a “political court” that has strayed from impartiality.
Hungary’s withdrawal was partly motivated by the ICC’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, which Orbán viewed as evidence of the court’s politicization.
By refusing to arrest Netanyahu during his visit, Hungary signaled its rejection of the ICC’s authority, aligning itself with critics who see the court as a tool of Western agendas.
Hungary is not alone. Burundi became the first country to leave the ICC in 2017, citing bias against African states, while South Africa and The Gambia briefly signaled their intent to withdraw for similar reasons.
These moves reflect a broader erosion of trust in the ICC, particularly among nations wary of its selective enforcement and Western influence. Hungary’s exit, as the first EU member to abandon the court, underscores the depth of this crisis and raises questions about the ICC’s future as a global institution.
A Eurocentric Foundation
At its core, the ICC’s problems stem from its Eurocentric foundations. Legal scholar Vasuki Nesiah argues that the court’s framework reflects “European imperial values,” prioritizing Western legal traditions while marginalizing perspectives from the Global South.
The Rome Statute, which established the ICC, excluded crimes like colonial domination that could have implicated Western powers, a concession to their objections during drafting.
This omission ensures that historical and ongoing Western atrocities—such as the transatlantic slave trade or modern military interventions—remain beyond the court’s purview, while African conflicts are scrutinized.
The ICC’s Eurocentrism is further evident in its prosecutorial strategy, which often targets African leaders while ignoring Western complicity.
For example, the court’s focus on African “single perpetrators” ignores the broader context of conflicts, such as the role of Western arms sales or economic policies in fueling instability.
This narrow approach reinforces the narrative of African “lawlessness,” deflecting attention from Western impunity.
The Path Forward
The ICC’s bias against Africa and its manipulation by Western powers undermine its legitimacy as a court of universal justice. To restore credibility, the court must address its structural flaws.
First, it should diversify its investigations to include non-African cases, ensuring that powerful states are not shielded from accountability.
Second, reforms are needed to insulate the court from Security Council influence and earmarked funding, which distort its priorities.
Finally, the ICC must engage more transparently with African stakeholders, acknowledging their contributions to its establishment and addressing their legitimate grievances.
Until these changes are made, the ICC will remain a flawed institution, perceived as a tool of Western hegemony rather than a champion of global justice.
Hungary’s withdrawal, like Burundi’s before it, is a symptom of this deeper malaise—a warning that the court’s survival depends on its ability to transcend its biases and serve all nations equitably.
For Africa, the pursuit of justice may increasingly lie in regional mechanisms, such as the African Court of Justice, which can better reflect the continent’s priorities and resist external manipulation.
The ICC’s promise of impartiality remains unfulfilled, and until it confronts its shortcomings, more nations may follow Hungary’s lead, leaving the court a hollow shell of its original ideals.