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.

Ghana said the move is intended to prevent a further escalation of incidents that have generated tensions between some institutions in both countries, while promoting an amicable, rules-based outcome that preserves the longstanding relations between Accra and Lomé.

“Ghana has taken this step in order to avoid an escalation of incidents that have created tensions between some of our institutions and to promote an amicable resolution, thereby contributing to the continued good relations between our two countries,” a statement from the government of Ghana read in part.

Ghana is effectively asking an independent tribunal constituted under UNCLOS to determine where the maritime boundary should lie, a process typically aimed at producing a binding outcome when parties cannot reach a negotiated settlement.

In 2014, Ghana initiated proceedings against neighbouring Côte d’Ivoire after disagreements over their offshore boundary in the Gulf of Guinea, disputes that intensified following major oil discoveries in the area. That case was heard by a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), acting under UNCLOS. The tribunal issued a binding decision in September 2017 that largely upheld Ghana’s position and delimited the maritime boundary along an equidistance line.

“Surely this confession will be used as clear evidence of America ’s participation in this act of aggression in any court,” Baqaei stated, adding that Tehran was documenting what it calls joint military aggression by Israel and the United States. He said Iran was reviewing “all possible international legal avenues to seek justice and file a lawsuit against the United States.”

Trump, speaking to reporters last Thursday, said he “took charge” of the Israeli operation.

“Israel attacked first… that attack was very, very powerful. I was very much in charge of that when Israel attacked Iran first,” he said, describing the strike as a “great day for Israel.”

The comments contradict previous statements by US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had insisted Israel acted independently.

Iran has since sent a formal letter to the UN Security Council condemning Trump’s comments as “clear and unambiguous proof of US involvement,” saying they invalidate earlier US denials.

“What remains of the rule of law,” one might ask, “when the European Commission deliberately circumvents the rulings of its own Court of Justice?”

This is not a theoretical question — it is the current reality of the European Union’s policy toward Western Sahara.

In October 2025, the Commission signed a new trade agreement with Morocco that explicitly covers the territory of Western Sahara — despite four clear rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declaring such inclusion unlawful without the free, prior, and informed consent of the Sahrawi people through their legitimate representative, the Polisario Front.

By doing so, the EU’s executive arm has not only contradicted the Union’s legal order but has also undermined one of its most sacred principles: respect for the rule of law.

A legal framework ignored

Since 2016, the CJEU has been remarkably consistent:

Western Sahara and Morocco are “separate and distinct territories”, and Morocco exercises no recognised sovereignty over the territory.

Any EU–Morocco agreement that applies to Western Sahara is, therefore, null and void unless it receives the free, prior, and informed consent of the Sahrawi people through their legitimate representative, the Polisario Front — a principle firmly rooted in international law and in the EU’s own treaties.

Yet, instead of implementing these judgments, the European Commission has chosen to reinterpret them politically, inventing a misleading concept of “consultations” with selected local actors to simulate “consent.”

This manoeuvre is not a legal adaptation — it is institutional defiance of judicial authority.

The message is unmistakable: in the hierarchy of EU institutions, political expediency now overrides judicial independence.

The politics of selective legality

The Commission’s behaviour sets a dangerous precedent for the entire Union.

If the EU’s executive body can ignore binding court rulings in one case, what prevents others from doing the same in future disputes?

Europe cannot demand that its member states uphold judicial independence while it bends its own laws for political convenience.

Behind the diplomatic language lies a deeper truth:

Morocco has turned its relationship with the EU into a mechanism of international legitimisation,

transforming trade, fisheries, and renewable energy agreements into a political instrument to reinforce its administrative control over Western Sahara.

Each new deal signed in Brussels is presented in Rabat’s media as “recognition of sovereignty,”

even though international law and the Court of Justice clearly state otherwise.

By proceeding under these terms, the European Commission risks becoming an enabler of this narrative,

granting indirect legitimacy to a governance system that relies on security control, demographic engineering, and economic dependency to maintain dominance over the Sahrawi population.

From administration to control: Morocco’s strategy in Western Sahara

Within the territory under Morocco’s de facto control,

an intricate structure of security oversight and economic dependency has been established.

Military checkpoints, intelligence surveillance, and administrative restrictions regulate every aspect of Sahrawi civic life.

Dozens of Sahrawi activists remain detained under questionable charges and unfair trials, often facing intimidation and mistreatment.

At the same time, economic dependency is deliberately used as a tool of control:

Jobs, permits, and financial incentives are granted primarily to Moroccan settlers and businessmen,

and to a small number of Sahrawis who remain silent or cooperate in exchange for roles that serve Morocco’s narrative on the Sahrawi question.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the Sahrawi population is excluded from meaningful economic participation and local decision-making.

Through this system, Morocco has turned the economy into an instrument of political and social domination,

where loyalty is rewarded and dissent is penalised.

What makes this reality even more alarming is that the European Commission has now become an active partner in this system.

By providing political and institutional support, it is helping Morocco evade the implementation of international legality and EU law,

thus enabling a governance model that systematically marginalises the Sahrawi people.

In doing so, the Commission is no longer a guardian of legality — it has become an actor in its erosion.

From law to morality

Europe’s institutions were built on the belief that legality and morality must coexist.

When the Commission chooses to bypass the Court’s decisions, it betrays not only the Sahrawi people but also the European citizens whose democratic legitimacy depends on trust in the rule of law.

The irony is stark: Europe promotes legality in Ukraine, in Palestine, and in Sudan,

yet tolerates a territorial exception in Western Sahara — the last unresolved decolonisation case in Africa.

How can the EU advocate for a “rules-based international order” while compromising its own legal integrity at home?

A crisis of credibility

By aligning with Morocco’s interpretation of “development,”

The European Commission has become an institutional partner in every violation occurring within the territory.

It is not merely ignoring the Court’s rulings — it is actively assisting Morocco in evading the implementation of international and European law,

thereby becoming complicit in the continued erosion of the Sahrawi people’s rights.

What makes this situation even more troubling is that Morocco has not only undermined legality in Western Sahara but has also managed to infiltrate parts of Europe’s own democratic system.

Through financial influence, lobbying, and the buying of political and media loyalty,

Rabat has built networks of influence within European institutions — a phenomenon exposed by scandals such as Qatargate and Moroccogate.

Despite this erosion of trust in European democracy, Morocco is today rewarded with a new, rushed, and opaque agreement,

as if the European Union were punishing its own judiciary while compensating those who defied it.

The moral and political imperative

Europe’s credibility begins — or ends — in Western Sahara.

The European Parliament, member states, and civil society must now decide whether the rule of law is a universal principle or a flexible political tool.

If the CJEU’s rulings continue to be ignored, then the very foundation of the European Union — legality, equality, and human rights — loses meaning.

The Sahrawi people have waited for five decades, believing in Europe’s conscience and its courts.

They have remained peaceful, disciplined, and faithful to the law.

If Europe chooses silence now, it will not only betray the Sahrawis — it will betray itself.

The opinions and thoughts expressed in this article reflect only the author's views.

Med Elbaikam is a human rights advocate and independent Sahrawi activist based in Europe.

1. Rejecting the “law of the strongest” and protecting the weak

Prabowo challenged the global order’s tendency to let powerful nations dominate weaker ones, urging the world to resist such injustice. He declared, “The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. We must reject this doctrine.” He further called for a rule-based international system that safeguards smaller nations.

2. A balanced stance on Israel and Palestine

In one of the speech’s most striking moments, Prabowo reaffirmed Indonesia’s support for Palestinian statehood, while also calling for Israel’s security to be guaranteed.

“We must have an independent Palestine, but we must also recognise, respect, and guarantee the safety and security of Israel. Only then can we have real peace,” he firmly remarked.

His comments stood out as Indonesia, long a strong supporter of Palestine, took a more balanced position than usual.

3. Offering 20,000 peacekeepers for global stability

Prabowo pledged Indonesia’s willingness to contribute massive troop support for peacekeeping missions, especially in conflict zones such as Gaza .

“Not with just words, but with boots on the ground. Indonesia is prepared to deploy 20,000 or even more of our sons and daughters to help secure peace in Gaza or elsewhere,” he pledged.

4. Turning Indonesia into a global rice supplier

Highlighting Indonesia’s recent agricultural successes, Prabowo announced ambitions to help feed the world.

"Indonesia recorded the highest rice production and grain reserves in our history. We are now self-sufficient and starting to export rice to other nations in need,” he said. Adding that, “We are confident that in a few years we will be the granary of the world.”

5. Green energy and sustainable development

Prabowo further pressed climate action as a national priority, pledging real change rather than “empty slogans.”

“We choose to confront climate change not by slogans, but by immediate steps. We are committed to meeting our 2015 Paris Agreement obligations and aim to achieve net zero emissions by 2060,” he said.

Indonesia, home to over 270 million people , is one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement.

“There is no more appropriate word to describe what is happening in Gaza than genocide,” Lula said, in one of the most forceful condemnations of Israel heard so far during the high-stakes debate in New York .

The Brazilian leader announced that his country would formally join the case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, which alleges that Israel is committing genocide. This, after a UN commission formally concluded the Israel’s war in Gaza is genocide.

“The right of defence does not authorise the indiscriminate killing of civilians,” Lula said. He stressed that Brazil had condemned Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel but argued that they could not justify the destruction of entire neighbourhoods or the mass killing of children.

Citing figures from the war, Lula said more than 50,000 children had been killed or maimed and 90% of homes in Gaza destroyed. He also accused Israel of using hunger as a weapon of war. 

“Half a million Palestinians do not have enough food — more than the population of Miami or Tel Aviv,” he said.

Lula framed the war not only as a regional crisis but also as a test of the international system itself. The conflict, he said, had become “the paramount symbol of the obstacles faced by multilateralism,” with the veto power at the Security Council paralysing meaningful action.

Palestinians have also been denied the basic pillars of statehood — territory, population and government — through occupation, displacement and the destruction of institutions, according to Lula. 

He described the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank as part of a pattern that amounted to “ethnic cleansing in real time.” He called for the creation of a new UN body, modelled on the Special Committee against Apartheid, to advance Palestinian self-determination.

“Ensuring dialogue for Palestinian self-determination is an act of justice and an essential step to restore the strength of multilateralism and to recover our collective sense of humanity,” Lula said.

His speech came during a high-level meeting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , where French President Emmanuel Macron announced France’s recognition of a Palestinian state. Other countries including Australia, Canada, Belgium and Malta have also taken that step in recent days, joining Brazil, which recognised Palestine in 2010.

More than 65,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel began its military campaign in Gaza last October, according to local health officials. Israel rejects accusations of genocide and says its offensive is aimed at eliminating Hamas, which it designates as a terrorist organisation.

As a result, regions closer to the poles, like Europe and North America, appear far bigger than they actually are, while equatorial continents, including Africa and South America , are dramatically shrunken.

Africa is about 30.3 million square kilometres, making it the second-largest continent on Earth.

It is three times bigger than Europe , yet many maps make it look nearly the same size.

The United States , China, India, and most of Western Europe could all fit inside Africa’s landmass at once.

Israel is in talks with South Sudan about resettling Palestinians from Gaza, part of its push for mass emigration after a 22-month offensive against Hamas. Six sources confirmed the discussions to the Associated Press, though it’s unclear how advanced they are. If enacted, the plan would move people from one war-torn, famine-threatened region to another, raising human rights concerns. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed the idea as “voluntary migration,” in line with former U.S. President Donald Trump’s vision, and has floated similar proposals with other African nations. Netanyahu told i24 TV that allowing civilians to leave would let Israel strike Hamas harder, though he did not mention South Sudan specifically.

AU calls for a permanent ceasefire

The African Union (AU) has urged South Sudan to uphold a permanent ceasefire and fully implement the revitalised peace agreement. Following a three-day mission to Juba, AU Peace and Security Council members met with President Salva Kiir and other leaders to discuss the accord’s progress and preparations for the December 2026 elections, which will end the transition period. The AU commended political leaders’ commitment to peace, called for inclusive dialogue, and pledged continued support to ensure stability and successful elections. The visit coincided with renewed regional efforts to reinforce South Sudan’s fragile peace deal, which has faced setbacks since independence in 2011.

3,000 Ugandans receive cholera vaccine from South Sudan

At least 3,500 Ugandans from Elegu Town Council in Amuru district have received cholera vaccines in South Sudan’s Nimule Town amid efforts to contain an outbreak that has killed five since July 2. The cross-border campaign, coordinated by Amuru health authorities and Nimule Hospital, aimed to curb transmission across the border. Officials said the initiative followed limited government support and resources in Amuru. Patrick Louis Lamot, Elegu’s Port Health focal person, said both sides agreed on joint strategies to combat public health threats, with vaccination as a key measure. He noted a recent drop in cholera cases but said it is unclear if it was directly linked to the vaccines.

Central Banks of the UAE and South Sudan sign MoU on payment

The Central Bank of the UAE and the Bank of South Sudan have signed an MoU to boost cooperation in security printing, payment systems, and capacity building. The agreement, witnessed by UAE Minister Sheikh Shakhbout bin Nahyan Al Nahyan and South Sudan’s Vice President Benjamin Bol Mel, was signed by officials from both banks. Under the deal, the UAE will support South Sudan in banknote security printing through its subsidiary Omlat, and develop a two-phase payment card system via Al Etihad Payments. The MoU also covers knowledge exchange, technical support, and staff training through the Emirates Institute of Finance.

South Sudan denies Israel talks over forced transfer of Palestinians

South Sudan has denied reports it is in talks with Israel to resettle Palestinians from Gaza, calling the claims “baseless” and not reflective of its policy. The Associated Press had reported discussions on an Israeli proposal to transfer Palestinians to South Sudan. The foreign ministry’s statement follows international criticism that such transfers would amount to forcible expulsion and violate international law. Critics fear the plan could block Palestinians’ return to Gaza and enable Israeli annexation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promoted “voluntary migration” for Gaza’s population, and similar proposals have reportedly been floated with other African nations. Egypt has rejected any forced transfers, while South Sudan—still recovering from civil war—already hosts large refugee populations.

In general, the recommended daily intake can range from 2,100 to 4,800 calories for adult men and from 1,750 to 3,400 calories for women. In food terms, that ranges from the equivalent of 35 McDonald's chicken nuggets per day at the low end to 96 at the top end. 

In 2022, the average American consumed the calorie equivalent of 10.6 McNuggets a day. In contrast, the average person in Burundi, Somalia, Lesotho, and Yemen consumed only around five nuggets' worth of calories each day. 

Over time, the amount of food available to most people, and therefore the amount they eat, has been rising. This is a result of poverty reduction as well as improvements in the way we produce and transport food. In most cases, this is a benefit, although in some wealthy countries, a surplus of food has led to serious health problems.

The inequality across the globe is not a recent trend, but a long-term challenge. According to the FAO's 2023 State of Food Security and Nutrition report , over 3.1 billion people, which is nearly 40% of the global population, cannot afford a healthy diet. Even more concerning is that this number has risen by 134 million since 2019, driven by overlapping crises: COVID-19 pandemic fallout, climate-induced harvest failures, inflation, and economic slowdowns.

These figures expose a multi-layered nutritional inequality, where calories are not just unequally distributed, but also increasingly inaccessible for the low-income group. A 2023 World Bank analysis revealed that in some low-income countries, households allocate up to 60% of their income to food.  

However, progress in some parts of the world has been rapid. The chart comparing calorie intake in 1980 vs. 2022 shows Vietnam and Ghana making significant gains, with Ghana's per-person calorie consumption more than doubling. This success is rooted in long-term agricultural investment, better food distribution, and poverty reduction strategies. Ghana, for example, has expanded public agricultural extension services and promoted farmer cooperatives.

Kenya saw a 10.2% decrease in average calorie intake, despite GDP growth and urbanisation. This reflects deeper structural problems, including rising food import dependency, regional inequality, and stagnant rural incomes. According to the report , rural communities have seen stagnation in dietary diversity and food availability.

Meanwhile, another graph shows China's dramatic rise in calorie intake over the past four decades, which closely aligns with its GDP growth. In the 1980s, China implemented market-oriented agricultural reforms, lifting millions out of hunger. Today, China also strategically uses international trade agreements and grain reserves to stabilise food prices. Other countries, including Mali, which has suffered from widespread violent conflict, and Indonesia, have seen less dramatic progress. Today, Indonesia is rolling out the world’s most ambitious free meals programme to close its nutritional gap. More than 80 million people are expected to benefit by 2029.

While undernutrition remains a critical issue in parts of the Global South, a different concern arises in high-income countries: overnutrition and obesity. The WHO warns that the worldwide prevalence of obesity more than doubled between 1990 and 2022. In the UK, for example, over one-third of adults are obese, driven in part by ultra-processed diets.

However, despite the concerns of unhealthy overeating, the biggest problem currently facing the world remains undernourishment. The success stories of the past thirty years demonstrate that it is a problem that can be conquered, but the failures indicate that its demise is far from guaranteed.

*Obviously consuming all your calories in the form of chicken nuggets does not represent a healthy diet. McDonald’s nuggets are used only as an example, other brands have similar nutritional profiles.