In October 2026, the United States imposed sweeping sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), the latest escalation in its campaign to undermine and “dismantle” the Court. The US objects to the ICC investigating or prosecuting American nationals and has also opposed its investigation into senior Israeli officials over war crimes in Gaza. The sanctions are troubling not only because they threaten the Court’s ability to operate independently, but because they expose a deeper question: does international law apply to everyone, or only to those without power? 

International law has never been free from hypocrisy. Great powers have often defended global rules while exempting themselves from them. Critics are right to point to double standards, selective enforcement and the influence of geopolitics. Yet these failures do not invalidate international law. They demonstrate why it is needed.

The modern international legal order emerged from the catastrophe of two world wars. Its foundation was a simple but transformative idea: that power alone should not determine what states may do and that even leaders can be held accountable for their actions.

The Nuremberg Trials established that principle. Sovereignty could no longer serve as a shield against responsibility. Political leaders, military commanders and officials could be judged for crimes committed in the name of the state. No one, in principle, stood above the law.

That achievement is now under threat.

Too many governments support international law only when it targets their enemies. Courts are praised when they investigate rivals and attacked when they scrutinise allies. Human rights are defended selectively. Legal principles are embraced when convenient and dismissed when politically costly.

The ICC exists because some crimes are so grave that they cannot be left solely to national governments. Its work depends on being able to investigate allegations independently, including when those under investigation are politically powerful or have the backing of powerful states. When governments respond to investigations with sanctions and threats rather than allowing the legal process to proceed, they undermine the Court’s ability to hold individuals accountable.

The issue reaches far beyond The Hague. It concerns the future of the international order itself. One vision holds that powerful states should remain the final judges of their own conduct. The other insists that universal legal standards must apply equally to all, regardless of military strength, wealth or political influence.

The stakes are visible in conflicts from Ukraine to Palestine. Circumstances differ, but the principle is the same. Laws governing aggression, occupation, civilian protection and war crimes either apply to everyone or they lose all credibility. International law cannot survive as a tool used against adversaries while ignored when allies stand accused.

Britain has a particular responsibility in this debate. It has strongly supported accountability for Russian actions in Ukraine and rightly argued that those responsible for war crimes should face justice. The same standard must apply elsewhere.

The allegations arising from the war in Gaza are therefore a test of Britain’s commitment to the rule of law. The International Court of Justice’s provisional ruling in South Africa’s genocide case triggered binding obligations on states to take active steps to prevent a genocide in Gaza. Yet Britain and other Western governments have continued to provide Israel with arms and diplomatic support, while failing to exert the meaningful pressure needed to compel Israel to change its conduct. This failure to act has helped entrench the impunity that makes international accountability all the more urgent. 

Britain must therefore stand firmly behind the International Criminal Court in the face of US sanctions and efforts to obstruct its work, and ensure that those accused of war crimes, whatever their nationality or position, are subjected to due process and independent legal scrutiny. The same principle must apply to any British citizen alleged to have committed crimes under international law, including through complicity in the war crimes. (Distinguished journalist Peter Oborne’s 2025 book Complicit deals with this last point very clearly.) 

The central question is not whether international law is perfect. It never has been. The question is whether law will constrain power, or whether power will dictate the law.

If states abandon the principle of equal accountability, the world will increasingly be governed by force, coercion and impunity. If they defend it, imperfect institutions can still provide a measure of justice and restraint.

The lesson of Nuremberg remains as urgent today as it was in 1945: no state, no leader and no individual should stand above the law. Abandon that principle, and we abandon one of humanity’s strongest safeguards against violence and tyranny. Defend it, and the promise of a more just international order remains alive.

* John Kelly is a member of the West Midlands Regional Executive, former Chair of Warwick District Liberal Democrats and Secretary of Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine.