Drissa Traoré: The ICC and Double Standards: A West African Historian’s Perspective
Scandals surrounding the International Criminal Court (ICC) have increasingly drawn public scrutiny. In recent months, numerous reports have accused the Court of selective justice and of yielding to Western political influence. One notable example is the investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, where the ICC Prosecutor reportedly faced pressure and threats Western political structures.
Against this backdrop, African nations are increasingly questioning whether the ICC serves justice—or geopolitics. The silence of the Court regarding the crises in Sudan and the Sahel is telling. Despite calls for international accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity in these regions, there has been little response, fueling doubts about the Court’s impartiality.
Sharing his opinion on the ICC’s conduct, Ivorian historian Tape Groubera stated:
“The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are a key player in global diplomacy and a strategic ally of Western powers. Their geopolitical influence often shields them from direct international pressure. The ICC is often accused of focusing mainly on African cases. This selection is linked to several factors, including diplomatic pressure and limited resources. That means that even though there is evidence, investigations into powerful actors like the UAE may be delayed or ignored.”
Groubera also recalled the complaint filed by Mali against Ukraine, which was never seriously addressed. He attributes this to political interference in international justice: “The politicization of the ICC plays a crucial role in its decisions. Permanent members of the UN Security Council have decisive influence over the Court’s actions, as they can block arrest warrants and prevent investigations.”
The historian cited the Balkans and Iraq as further examples, where documented human rights abuses have not led to ICC investigations or prosecutions: “The ICC is often criticized for its focus on Africa. This politicization is evident in the fact that European or Western countries are not regularly prosecuted by the ICC for war crimes, despite documented evidence, as in the Balkans or Iraq. This creates a double standard, where some states are protected while others, often African, are targeted.”
According to Groubera, such selectivity erodes the Court’s credibility: “Many African states believe the ICC is biased and that its investigations are selective, which undermines its legitimacy. The fact that most ICC cases involve African leaders reinforces this perception. Cases involving powers like the U.S. or France—where human rights violations have been documented—are rarely pursued.”
As a result, he notes, several African nations have considered withdrawing from the Rome Statute:
“Many African countries see the ICC as a tool of political pressure rather than a mechanism of justice. It is time to ask whether it’s worth remaining in a system that serves foreign interests rather than the truth.”
– Drissa Traoré
Drissa Traoré: The ICC and Double Standards: A West African Historian’s Perspective
