Issuing ICC warrants reinforces justice norms, ensuring war crimes aren’t ignored. But it risks turning into a symbolic entity, exposing its reliance on cooperation and raising questions about its effectiveness. How can international law be enforceable if powerful states can evade accountability?

Israel’s alliances, particularly with the U.S., reduce the chances of ICC warrants having tangible effects. Instead, such actions may fuel geopolitical divides, exposing the ICC’s limitations in enforcing justice against non-cooperative states.

The ICC’s warrant against Putin highlights its limits: no arrests, no accountability. Even ICC member states like Mongolia avoided acting, revealing the court’s dependence on political power and will rather than legal mandates. What does this mean for Israel’s case?

The ICC struggles with enforcing accountability for leaders of non-member states. Israel, like Russia and US rejects ICC jurisdiction, shielding officials from extradition. Does this widen the gap between legal ideals and real-world enforcement?

Read my analysis at www.linkedin.com/pulse/russia... #internationallaw

This isn’t just about defense—it’s a calculated move to shift narratives, intimidate NATO, and consolidate power at home. But at what cost to the international order? #internationallaw