 Print
ICC Independence Under Pressure: Why Equal Justice Cannot Bend to Power
7-26-2026
For survivors of Srebrenica, Darfur, Rwanda, Ukraine, Gaza, and countless other places scarred by mass violence, international justice has always represented more than a courtroom. It is a promise that no office, army, or political alliance should place anyone beyond accountability. That promise has never been perfect, but it remains indispensable.
The recent turmoil surrounding the International Criminal Court (ICC) should therefore concern far more than lawyers or diplomats. Whatever the outcome of the Court’s internal disciplinary processes, this moment raises a larger question: will future prosecutors feel able to pursue the world’s most powerful figures with the same determination they pursue the powerless?
That question matters to every community that has ever buried innocent lives.
The lessons of Srebrenica remain painfully clear. More than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were murdered in July 1995 despite the area’s designation as a UN “safe area.” Justice eventually came for some of those responsible through the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including convictions of senior political and military leaders for genocide and other crimes. Those verdicts demonstrated that accountability, though painfully slow, is possible.
But they also showed how difficult justice becomes when politics delays action.
The ICC was created to reduce that gap between atrocity and accountability. Unlike earlier ad hoc tribunals, it was designed as a permanent institution capable of investigating genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression when national systems fail. Yet the Court has always depended on states to arrest suspects, provide evidence, and respect its independence. Without that cooperation, even the strongest legal ruling risks becoming little more than paper.
As Muslims, we understand that justice is not measured by who benefits from it but by whether it is applied fairly. The Qur’an commands: “O you who believe! Stand firmly for justice, as witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or your parents and relatives.” (Qur’an 4:135). That verse rejects selective justice. It reminds us that truth loses its meaning the moment power determines who answers for wrongdoing.
The same principle echoes beyond faith traditions. Martin Luther King Jr. warned that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” His words endure because they recognize that when one injustice is excused, every legal system becomes weaker.
The concern today is not about one prosecutor alone. Institutions are larger than individuals, and no official should be immune from scrutiny if credible allegations of misconduct arise. Internal accountability strengthens public confidence. Yet the independence of the institution must also be protected from external political pressure. If future prosecutors conclude that pursuing influential leaders carries unacceptable personal or institutional consequences, the deterrent value of international justice will inevitably diminish.
History offers uncomfortable examples. Former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir travelled internationally for years despite ICC arrest warrants. Kenya’s case against President Uhuru Kenyatta ultimately collapsed after serious evidentiary challenges and witness issues. More recently, investigations relating to Ukraine and Gaza have generated intense political disagreement and resistance from different governments. These episodes reveal a persistent reality: international law is strongest when states cooperate and weakest when geopolitical interests intervene.
That unevenness should trouble everyone, not only Muslims.
Today’s victims may be Palestinian, Ukrainian, Sudanese, Congolese, Rohingya, or from another forgotten conflict. Tomorrow’s victims may belong to an entirely different nation or faith. The principle at stake never changes. If accountability depends on military strength, economic influence, or diplomatic alliances, then justice ceases to be universal.
Canada has long described itself as a defender of the rules-based international order. That commitment carries responsibilities. Supporting international justice cannot depend on whose allies are under investigation. It requires defending legal institutions consistently, respecting due process, and applying the same standards regardless of geography or political convenience.
For Canadian Muslims, this is both a civic responsibility and a moral one. We should advocate peacefully, engage democratically, and build broad coalitions with all who believe that human dignity is indivisible. The defence of international law is not a Muslim cause alone; it is a human cause.
The ICC remains an imperfect institution, but a flawed court striving to uphold universal principles is better than a world where power alone decides who answers for mass atrocities. Future prosecutors, future victims, and future generations will judge whether this generation defended equal justice when it became politically inconvenient.
If the law bends whenever the powerful object, then it is not only the Court that loses credibility. Humanity loses one of its last safeguards against impunity.
Karim Khan is not the ICC.
The removal of one prosecutor should never become an opportunity to undermine the Court itself. Nor should legitimate internal accountability become a pretext for diminishing an institution whose purpose is to ensure that the gravest crimes known to humanity do not escape legal scrutiny.
Ultimately, the question before the international community is larger than Karim Khan.
It is whether international justice can remain independent when confronted by geopolitical power.
If the answer is yes, then the ICC will continue evolving as one of the world’s most important legal institutions.
If the answer is no, future victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity may find that the promise of equal justice depends less on the law than on the identity of the accused.
That would represent not simply a failure of one court, but a failure of the international order itself.
Footnotes:
|