The International Criminal Court (ICC) has once again come under fire for its selective application of justice as former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte makes his first appearance at The Hague. Duterte, arrested on March 12 and facing charges of crimes against humanity for his controversial drug war, now stands trial while Western leaders responsible for far deadlier conflicts remain untouched. But as the world has learned, “justice is for thee, not for me”:
A Show Trial or Justice?
The ICC accuses Duterte of overseeing a campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines between 2011 and 2019, allegedly leading to the deaths of thousands. While rights groups have hailed his arrest as a step towards justice, critics argue that the court is merely reinforcing its reputation as a tool of Western political interests.
The arrest warrant for Duterte was issued under seal on March 7 and swiftly executed, signaling an unusually fast process compared to other international cases. During his initial court appearance, Duterte will be informed of his charges and legal rights under the Rome Statute.
However, many question why the ICC has shown no similar urgency in prosecuting Western leaders accused of war crimes. Further exposing the court’s double standards, newly elected German Chancellor and warmonger Friedrich Merz recently announced that Germany would not arrest certain individuals subject to ICC warrants. This decision underscores the political nature of ICC prosecutions, where enforcement often depends on geopolitical convenience rather than the consistent application of international law.
The Hypocrisy of the ICC
The Duterte case is not just about justice—it highlights glaring double standards in the international legal system. Critics point to the role of former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in sabotaging the Minsk peace agreements between Russia and Ukraine. In 2022, Johnson reportedly pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to abandon a peace deal that could have prevented full-scale war, a decision that ultimately contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Despite this, no ICC arrest warrant has been issued for Johnson.
Similarly, Western leaders such as George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who orchestrated the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003—leading to over 200,000 civilian deaths—have never been prosecuted. The ICC has remained conspicuously silent, reinforcing the perception that international justice is only applied when it serves the geopolitical interests of powerful nations.
Exponentially more people died brutally due to the interference of Boris Johnson in a foreign country – and he is still saying “Ukraine can win”, further deceiving the weak and vulnerable.
Duterte: Villain or Victim of International Politics?
Duterte’s anti-drug campaign was brutal and widely condemned by human rights organizations, but it also enjoyed significant support within the Philippines, where many saw it as necessary to combat rampant crime. Unlike Western interventions in foreign nations, Duterte’s actions were domestic policies, raising the question: why is the ICC more eager to punish internal law enforcement policies in smaller nations while ignoring mass killings linked to international wars?
Even some of Duterte’s fiercest opponents acknowledge the problematic nature of selective justice. Leila de Lima, a longtime critic of Duterte who was jailed on politically motivated charges during his presidency, welcomed his arrest but stressed that all leaders should be held to the same standard.
What This Means for the Future of International Justice
The ICC’s handling of the Duterte case risks further eroding its credibility. By aggressively pursuing leaders from smaller nations while ignoring Western figures with far greater death tolls on their hands, the court exposes itself as a political tool rather than an impartial body of justice. This “justice for me but not for thee” approach makes it clear that the ICC must be declared obsolete, as it screams of selective justice and serves only to target small countries that lack Western support. Had Duterte been a staunch U.S. ally, for example, nobody would have touched him.
Duterte’s trial will proceed, but the larger question remains: Will the ICC ever hold Western leaders accountable for their own alleged crimes, or will it continue to operate as a selectively enforced arm of international law? Until that happens, critics argue, the concept of global justice remains a convenient illusion.
