It was in Nuremberg where modern public international law came into being. As Nazi ministers and officers stood for examination before a coterie of judges from the Allied states, the emphasis fell heavy on ‘never again’. To guarantee this, the world looked to international law. The Nuremberg Trials were a precursor to what many hoped would come out of the devastation of WWII – an effective and accepted body of international rules and principles that would bind states, defended by institutions holding state actors to account.

But from the moment Hersch Lauterpacht, the international law scholar, coined the concept of crimes against humanity, and since the judges at Nuremberg handed down sentences to those convicted of it, the concept’s practical force has faded. It only took an American president nine years to forget the lessons of Nuremberg, wielding napalm and other chemical weapons against the Vietnamese. Since then, western liberal democracies have trampled norms they professed allegiance to. British troops committed war crimes in Northern Ireland during the Troubles; America and its allies invaded Afghanistan, followed by Iraq; and Israel, a state that emerged from the tragedies prosecuted at Nuremberg, may now be committing genocide against the Palestinian people.

International law does still have force, but its strictures are binding only for little countries. At the close of the 20th century, two tribunals were formed to investigate and prosecute the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda (the ICTY and ICTR, respectively). With impetus from the UN Security Council, individuals including Slobodan Milošević, the first and so far only sitting head of state to be tried before an international court and Jean-Paul Akayesu were held to account. From the success of these tribunals came the International Criminal Court in 1998, mandated with investigating and prosecuting individuals suspected of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

But, having already withdrawn from the International Court of Justice (the supervisory court of the UN) in 1986, the US refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the ICC. So too did Israel, Russia, and China. America may have been happy to see other states subject to the scrutiny of international organs, playing a key role in the international tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but it was unwilling to subject itself to what it sees as an indignity. Israel, then also led by Netanyahu, trailed in America’s wake, while by opting out, America gave de facto permission to China and Russia to do the same.

Coming into existence with one arm already tied behind its back, the ICC promised little and delivered less. Until 2016, the ICC’s prosecutors only targeted leaders in African countries (leading to understandable claims of bias and western imperialism), and since then, their ambit has only stretched as far as Afghanistan, Georgia, Venezuela, and now, Palestine.

In requesting an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan KC, is attempting to counter this narrative, but it is too little, too late. Israel has already been criticised by the ICJ and ordered to take steps to “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of acts of genocide”. This order was ignored. Israel continued, and continues, to pummel Gaza with munitions. Every university in Gaza has been destroyed, and few hospitals and schools are still standing. Now the IDF is destroying Rafah, the final city still standing in Palestine and and ostensibly the last refuge of Hamas. Israel clings to the pretext that its occupation, if not destruction, of the city is necessary to defeat Hamas. The fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation whose ideology lives in hearts and minds, not in infrastructure, is ignored. Its presence in the city serves as useful cover for Netanyahu’s ultimate aim, which is to claim Gaza for Israel. Khan’s decision to issue an arrest warrant on suspicion of genocide will do nothing to turn him from this course.

If international law had any real force, there would at least be meaningful efforts from Israel’s allies to force its government to engage with the orders of the ICJ, if not the ICC’s arrest warrant. Instead, western liberal democracies stand by, or worse, actively support, a potential genocide. President Biden, who could single-handedly end the destruction by ordering a halt to America’s funding and arming of Israel, has issued half-hearted ultimatums over Israel’s conduct. Netanyahu has marched through every one, and still American arms and munitions make their way across the Atlantic and onto Palestinian soil. These are not defensive weapons necessary for Israel to keep itself safe from the antagonists that encircle it, but offensive weapons designed to maim and to kill. American politicians relish this. A video circulating earlier this week showed Nikki Haley, former US ambassador to the UN, writing ‘FINISH THEM!’ onto artillery shells about to be fired into Rafah. This was a day after the massacre of refugees. Haley knew

Even after Khan applied for arrest warrants, Biden blamed Hamas for the war – ignoring the fact that war is now being waged on Palestinians, not Hamas insurgents – and accused Khan of politicking. Rather than acknowledge that Israel has violated fundamental norms of a just war, and that Netanyahu and his Cabinet should be held accountable, Biden described the warrant as ‘outrageous’. Meanwhile, the aid that was due to be delivered by America via floating piers has been delayed due to ‘logistical difficulties’.

What the ICC prosecutor’s request for an arrest warrant has done is to drag the impotence of international law out into the light. Even though France and Germany, as well as other Western European countries have issued milquetoast statements in support of the independence of the ICC, there is scepticism about whether they would enforce the arrest warrant if Netanyahu touched down on their soil. This scepticism is legitimate. Germany continues to sell arms to Israel despite the order of the ICJ, and Olaf Scholz’s government defending its right to do so in court against claims that it is violating the Genocide Convention. So too does the UK, with the High Court throwing out a case challenging the legality of arms sales to Israel.

Netanyahu is not the only world leader to be pursued by the ICC. In March 2023, prosecutors for the court issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Llova-Belova, the Russian commissioner for children’s rights. As if exemplifying the futility of international law, the warrant for Putin’s arrest was not for the invasion and destruction of Ukraine, but for the forcible deportation and transfer of children. An egregious crime, but a minor one compared to his other offences. And what emphasises its futility even more is that Putin remains at liberty as Russia’s head of state.

So long as America and other world superpowers (primarily China) remain reluctant to acknowledge the legal and moral force of international law, it will remain a bauble on the world stage. The need for every country to remain sovereign, and to be seen to remain sovereign means that only countries without any political clout are forced to toe the line. For countries with genuine geo-political influence, it is an optional extra, something to be followed when it is convenient, but otherwise ignored. Many things have changed on the global stage since the Nuremberg Trials concluded. The willingness of superpowers to be held to account by international law is not one of them.