Why the ICC prosecutes the Global South — but struggles with the Global North

This debate sharpened after US President Donald Trump threatened to destroy Iranian bridges and power plants unless Tehran reopened the Strait of Hormuz by Tuesday, 8 p.m. (Eastern Time), then said he was “not at all” concerned that such action could amount to war crimes. 

But can’t they really?

About the ICC

The ICC was created by the Rome Statute as a court of last resort. It prosecutes individuals, not states, and covers four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. 

It is meant to step in only when national authorities are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate and prosecute. Its jurisdiction is also limited. In general, the court can act when the alleged crimes were committed on the territory of a state party, by a national of a state party, or when the UN Security Council refers a situation to it. 

As of now, 125 countries are parties to the Rome Statute: 33 African States, 19 Asia-Pacific States, 20 countries from Eastern Europe, 28 Latin American and Caribbean States, and 25 Western European and other States.

Important to note: the United States and Israel are not parties to the statute. 

Most of ICC’s defendants are from the Global South

That legal architecture helps explain why the ICC’s public defendants list remains heavily weighted towards weaker or more internationally exposed states. 

ICC’s website currently lists 74 defendants. The roster is dominated by African situations, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo (6), Uganda (5), Sudan (7), the Central African Republic (12), Kenya (9), Libya (14), Côte d’Ivoire (3) and Mali (3). The remainder stretches across places such as Afghanistan (2), Georgia (3), Ukraine (6), the State of Palestine (3) and the Philippines (1). 

An overwhelming majority — 51 defendants — face war crimes allegations. These include Sudan’s Abd-Al-Rahman, who is suspected of 31 counts of war crimes and is in ICC custody, and Libya’s Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri, better known as “El Hishri.”

Warrants for Netanyahu, Putin

That is not to say the court has never tried to go after bigger fish.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is the subject of an ICC arrest warrant for the alleged war crimes of unlawfully deporting and transferring Ukrainian children. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant are also the subjects of ICC warrants after judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe they bore criminal responsibility for, among other acts, starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and intentionally directing attacks against civilians in Gaza. 

Those cases show that the court can, at least on paper, move against leaders backed by strong states. But a warrant is not an arrest, and the court has no police force of its own. It depends on state cooperation.

Can they get Trump?

The Iran war illustrates the next barrier. There are already credible traces of conduct that international humanitarian law treats as potentially criminal. 

For instance, attacks on civilian installations can constitute war crimes if they fail the tests of military necessity, distinction and proportionality. Trump’s threats against bridges and power plants therefore fall squarely within such conduct.

In a joint letter published on April 2, more than 100 US-based international law experts expressed “serious concerns about violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.”

They cited Trump’s threats to Iran’s energy infrastructure, as well as the February 28 strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, which resulted in the deaths of at least 175 people, many of them children.

“The strike likely violates international humanitarian law, and if evidence is found that those responsible were reckless, it could also be a war crime. The strike is among the deadliest single attacks by the U.S. military on civilians in recent decades,” the lawyers noted.

So can the ICC get Trump or Netanyahu? Netanyahu is already within the court’s reach because the judges have said the court has jurisdiction in the State of Palestine and have rejected Israel’s challenge. 

Trump is a different case. 

Washington has gone beyond non-membership and moved to punish the court itself. In a February 2025 order, the White House called the ICC’s actions against the US and Israel “illegitimate and baseless,” said neither country had accepted the court’s jurisdiction, and authorised sanctions, asset blocking and visa restrictions against ICC officials and those assisting them. 

In practice, that leaves the ICC confronting the same problem critics have long identified: it can name the powerful, but it is far better equipped to jail the weak.