Netanyahu is a wanted man who roams the world freely

The empty seats surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations General Assembly last week prove that the rest of the world might finally be in a position to stand decisively against the actions of Israel in Gaza. As the Israeli prime minister began his address on September 24, dozens of delegations walked out, leaving a substantially diminished audience behind. Mr Netanyahu responded by accusing those who remained of cowardice and proceeded with a speech defending Israel’s conduct in Gaza, attacking its international critics and portraying Israel as a defender of the wider international order.

The walkout was politically significant, but perhaps more revealing was the contradiction between the international isolation displayed inside the General Assembly and the freedom Netanyahu continues to enjoy outside it. He is subject to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), yet he has continued to travel internationally, including to the United States (US), while European states have allowed his aircraft to pass through their airspace. The ICC warrant, issued in November 2024, alleges war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.

The ICC does not have its own police force. It relies on states to execute its arrest warrants. That means the effectiveness of the court depends ultimately upon governments being willing to place legal obligations above diplomatic relationships and political convenience. This has always been one of the institution's central weaknesses. But the Netanyahu case has made the problem particularly visible because many of the states that have historically presented themselves as champions of the international rules-based order have been reluctant to apply those rules to a close strategic partner.

Contrast this with how African and other third world indictees are treated by the international community. When Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was subject to ICC warrants, his international movements became a matter of intense diplomatic and legal controversy. In 2015, when he travelled to South Africa for an African Union summit, South African authorities allowed him to leave despite an ICC request for his arrest. The ICC subsequently found that South Africa had failed to comply with its obligations under the Rome Statute. The court's records document that it had specifically requested South Africa to arrest and surrender Bashir if he entered its territory. Bashir himself travelled to several countries that were parties to the Rome Statute, and other governments also failed to execute the warrant. The ICC has subsequently found multiple states, including Jordan and Mongolia, to have failed to comply with their obligations in particular circumstances.

Nevertheless, the broader pattern begs the question why the international criminal justice system historically appeared particularly forceful when dealing with African leaders, while its authority becomes considerably more negotiable when the person involved is politically protected by powerful Western states. Before this UN General Assembly meeting, in July, Netanyahu's aircraft crossed the airspace of Greece, Italy and France on its way to the United States, despite the outstanding ICC warrant. Questions were subsequently raised about the obligations of those European states as parties to the Rome Statute. France has since defended its decision to permit the overflight, arguing that the Rome Statute does not require a state to prevent an aircraft carrying a wanted person from crossing its airspace. Unfortunately, the US, where Netanyahu landed, is not a party to the Rome Statute and therefore does not have the same treaty obligations as European states that have ratified it. Nevertheless, as a strong backer of the Rome Statute, the US appears particularly biased on the question of arresting its strongest ally. Mayor Zohran Mamdani had declared that should the Israeli Prime Minister land in New York, he would make an effort to have him arrested, but the diplomatic and public backlash that followed this statement ultimately forced Mamdani to back down. Indeed, New York currently presents as a site of extreme unfairness when it comes to how leaders of different countries are treated; whilst Netanyahu can freely attend meetings there and defend his actions in Gaza, President Maduro of Venezuela, who was kidnapped from his country in an act of blatant illegality by the US, sits in prison at in New York.

The ICC's critics are right to point to these apparent biases, although it would be too simplistic to conclude that the court is merely a Western instrument designed to control the Global South. African governments were among those that supported the creation of the court, and African victims have also used international criminal justice mechanisms to pursue accountability. At the same time, the history of the court has undeniably produced a perception that international criminal justice has been disproportionately directed at African leaders and that powerful states have been better positioned to resist its reach.

The answer cannot be to abandon international criminal law. If anything, the Netanyahu case demonstrates why its principles need to be applied more consistently. The legitimacy of international justice depends upon the same legal standards being available to Palestinians, Sudanese, Ukrainians, Israelis and everyone else, rather than becoming stronger or weaker according to the geopolitical importance of the person accused.

Ms Njahira is an international lawyer