What's The Point of International Law?

International law has been ridiculed recently as being weak and ineffective. Because it has been. But why is that? In part, it's because the United States and its allies manipulate institutions like the UN and the International Criminal Court to evade accountability and further their own interests. When the ICC issued arrest warrants against Israeli officials and demanded the operation in Rafah end immediately, Israel ignored the order, intensified its attacks, and Joe Biden provided a swift denunciation of the court's orders providing all the cover they needed. This reaction is indicative of a recurring theme, the selective application of international law. While institutions like the UN and the ICC were nominally established to uphold global peace and justice, their track records reveal a stark divide between their lofty goals and the reality of their enforcement. The US leverages its political and economic clout to consistently shield itself and its allies from international scrutiny and, more importantly, consequences. In this episode, we'll explore the origin and role of international law and demonstrate how it's historically reinforced colonial and neocolonial dominance. But before we do, I'd like to take a quick moment to thank our channel sponsor, Ora. As you all know, we make political content here and on our other channels. Unfortunately, that means some people don't like us very much. These days, a quick Google search is all it takes to find someone's personal information. Data brokers sell your information to scammers, spammers, and anyone else who may want to target you. Your full name, email, home address, health records, your relatives, it's all readily available for those who want to find it. That's why I've been using Ora to help keep my private details private. Ora shows me which data brokers are selling my information and automatically submits opt-out requests for me. This not only cuts down on the amount of spam I get, but also helps keep all my accounts safe from bad actors. I'll give you a real-world example. AT&T recently revealed that over 73 million customer records, both existing and former customers, were released on the dark web. They recommended that those affected change their passwords, monitor account activity, and consider credit freezes or fraud alerts from credit bureaus. This was a huge breach, but I don't have to worry. Ora does all of this for me. And best of all, I don't have to download a bunch of different apps just because some company couldn't keep my data secure. I value my privacy, and I'm sure you value yours. You can go to ora.com slash firstthought to start your two-week free trial, no strings attached. Try it out, and I promise you'll appreciate the peace of mind. Support the show and protect your valuable data by signing up today at the link below. The United Nations and the International Criminal Court claim to exist for the cause of real justice. The UN was founded in 1945 with the primary mission of maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, and fostering social and economic development. Not doing great so far on those fronts. Its charter aimed to prevent the kind of catastrophic conflict that had devastated the world twice in less than half a century, or what's happening now in Ukraine and Palestine. See what I mean about that track record? The ICC, a product of the Rome Statute, wasn't established until 2002, and is the first permanent international court capable of prosecuting individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The Rome Statute was adopted in 1998, and by July 1st, 2002, it had come into force with the ratification of 60 countries. The ICC represented a significant step forward in the global quest for justice, providing a permanent judicial body to address the most egregious violations of international law. The adoption of the Rome Statute and establishment of the ICC were met with resistance from powerful nations, particularly the United States. The so-called American Service Members Protection Act of 2002, also known as the Hague Invasion Act, authorizes the use of military force to free any U.S. personnel detained by the ICC, which should show you how far the U.S. is willing to go to protect its war criminals from accountability. And as we delve deeper into the history and roles of these institutions, it should become clear that their creation was much more about maintaining a world order dominated by western powers than it was about promoting global justice. The selective application of international law and the structural limitations of these bodies have made them little more than tools of neocolonial rule rather than impartial arbiters of justice. During the colonial era, western powers used legal frameworks to legitimize their control over vast territories in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Concepts such as terra nullius, or land belonging to no one, and the doctrine of discovery were employed to justify the appropriation of lands and the subjugation of indigenous populations. These legal doctrines allowed colonial powers to establish and maintain their empires under the guise of bringing civilization to uncivilized parts of the world. Even after the end of so-called formal colonialism, the legacy of these legal principles has persisted. Newly independent states were integrated into an international system that had been shaped by and for the benefit of their former colonizers. Unfortunately, the ICC provides a clear example of the selective enforcement of international law, which has been a hallmark of its operation. Since its establishment, it has predominantly focused on African leaders, with cases involving Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, Kenyan deputy president William Ruto, and Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony, among others. And while, yes, these prosecutions are important, the glaring absence of cases against western leaders or their allies raises questions about the impartiality of the court, especially given the extent and severity of the crimes committed by western regimes. This isn't a coincidence. It reflects the political realities that shape international law, and is exemplified by a recent interaction between ICC prosecutor Karim Khan and a senior elected leader where they said to Khan, quote, the international criminal court is built for Africa and for thugs like Putin, clearly implying that there are whole groups of countries that shouldn't be subject to the scrutiny of the court. Speaking of Putin, let's take a look at what Joe Biden and other western officials said about the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for war crimes. The truth of the matter is so it happened in Bukit, this warrants him, he is a war criminal. We have to gather all the detail so this could be an actual, have a war crime trial. In a nutshell, it's justified. Can't get much clearer than that. In addition to Biden's condemnation of the warrants against Israeli officials, members of his administration and congress have also weighed in. They want to sanction the ICC. You heard that right. Republican senators have threatened severe sanctions against the international criminal court if it proceeds with legal action against Israel. Secretary of State Antony Blinken approves of this effort, telling Senator Lindsey Graham that he welcomed the opportunity to work on a bipartisan effort to sanction the ICC, to quote, protect US interests. These people aren't even trying to hide it anymore. And because the US has its back, Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank will continue to escape international legal consequences, despite overwhelming evidence of genocide, human rights abuses, and severe violations of international law. The Israeli genocide of Palestine is the clearest example in modern history. Just search the word Palestine on Twitter or Telegram and you'll find thousands of videos of children being blown to pieces, hospitals and places of worship being leveled, and IDF soldiers bragging about their war crimes. The West's actions to block the ICC from pursuing justice in this case, while advocating for action when it benefits them geopolitically, has prompted the question, what good are these institutions if the US and its lackeys can flaunt international law at will? Examining specific cases like the horrific US war crimes in Vietnam provides further insight into this selective application. Extensive atrocities committed during the war, including the My Lai Massacre, the widespread use of defoliants, and Operation Speedy Express are serious, despicable war crimes that have gone completely unpunished despite being extremely clear violations of international law. The My Lai Massacre, perhaps the most infamous crime, was the wholesale slaughter of over 500 Vietnamese civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, by American soldiers. And this massacre was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of systemic violence and disregard for human life. The US military's use of defoliants like Agent Orange caused long-term environmental damage and severe health problems for millions of Vietnamese. The bombing campaigns, particularly Operation Rolling Thunder, resulted in massive civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure. Operation Speedy Express, one of the deadliest single operations of the war, led to the deaths of at least 7,000 civilians under the guise of targeting North Vietnamese fighters. And this impunity enjoyed by the US extends beyond the Vietnam War into more recent military actions. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have similarly been marked by significant civilian casualties and war crimes. The use of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia has resulted in scores of civilian deaths, with little to no transparency or accountability. These actions, justified under the vague banner of counter-terrorism, have drawn fierce criticism from international human rights organizations, and yet the US remains completely unaccountable on the global stage. Even more recently, Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank provide another stark example of the unequal application of international law. Since its inception, Israel has been rightly accused of literally thousands of human rights violations, including the disproportionate use of force against civilians, the destruction of Palestinian homes, and the blockade of Gaza, which has led to severe humanitarian crises. Of course, all these crimes are being committed in service of a full-blown genocide, but each are crimes in their own right. Despite these obvious and flagrant violations of international law and basic human decency, Israel has yet to face any international legal consequences. The US continues to use its political and economic influence to shield Israel from accountability, vetoing multiple UN Security Council resolutions aimed at condemning Israeli crimes or taking action to stop them. And they've done this while simultaneously pretending that there is no genocide and that even if there was, Israel has the right to, quote, defend itself by obliterating an entire history, culture, and people. The ICC relies on state cooperation to enforce its warrants and conduct investigations. However, nations like the US and its allies can simply refuse to cooperate. The ICC does not have its own enforcement mechanisms, and its reliance on member states for arrests and evidence collection makes it vulnerable to exactly this kind of non-compliance. What's more, the principle of complementarity, which underpins the ICC's jurisdiction, states that the ICC can only prosecute when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Nations often claim jurisdiction over their own personnel, conducting internal investigations that frequently result in little to no accountability. These internal investigations often lack transparency and independence, serving more as a means to placate international demands than to deliver justice. The Rome Statute itself, which established the ICC, contains provisions that limit its reach. For instance, Article 98 prevents the ICC from requesting the surrender of a person from a state if it would require that state to act inconsistently with its international obligations. This provision has been used by the US to secure bilateral immunity agreements with several countries, ensuring that US nationals cannot be handed over to the ICC. One of the primary reasons international courts like the ICC fail to hold the US and its allies accountable is the significant political influence they wield. The permanent members of the UN Security Council — the US, UK, France, Russia, and China — hold veto power. Given that three of these countries are close allies, it allows them to block any actions that may threaten their interests. This veto power has been used repeatedly to shield nations from accountability. This was evident when the US pressured other Security Council members to block any attempts to refer its actions in Afghanistan to the ICC. The Security Council's influence over the ICC not only limits the court's effectiveness, but also undermines it. The ability of powerful nations to block referrals and influence investigations demonstrates that the ICC is a tool of political power rather than an impartial judicial body. This erodes trust in the ICC and discourages cooperation from other nations, further weakening its ability to enforce international law. And the influence of these nations extends far beyond the Security Council. Countries like the US leverage their economic and diplomatic power to sway other nations and international bodies with threats of sanctions, withdrawal of aid, or diplomatic isolation often used to dissuade countries from supporting actions that might hold the US or its allies accountable. Their manipulation of international politics ensures that the ICC and other international bodies cannot function impartially — or in some cases, function at all. Despite the admirable goal of bringing justice to the world, these international organs have instead brought Western-style law and order. That means the entire world is divided into two groups — those allowed to break the rules and those subject to the consequences. The selective enforcement that results from this world order undermines the core principles of justice and equality that institutions like the UN and the ICC were supposedly founded upon. By investigating examples such as the Vietnam War and Israel's genocide in Gaza, it becomes evident that international law is often manipulated to serve the interests of the powerful, while underdeveloped states bear the brunt of enforcement. This disparity not only erodes trust in international institutions, but also perpetuates global inequality and encourages further violations of international norms. The inability of the ICC to prosecute US and Israeli officials despite clear evidence of war crimes exemplifies the systemic failures that plague our current system of international law. The promise of true justice will remain unfulfilled as long as the US and its allies continue to evade accountability. Episodes like this one are made possible thanks to our generous patrons on Patreon. If you'd like to help support the show and get some great perks while you're at it, consider becoming a patron. Perks include access to our Discord server, early access to videos, ad-free episodes, and more. You can help us keep the channel afloat by becoming a patron at patreon.com slash firstthought. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time.