• Ibrahim M. Alsemeiri       PALM Strategic Initiatives Centre, Palestine, Gaza
• Ibrahim S. ALzaeem       PALM Strategic Initiatives Centre, Palestine, Gaza
• Mohammedwesam Amer    Cara/IIE-SRF Fellow, Sociology Department, University of Cambridge

The issuance of ICC arrest warrants against Israeli leaders has magnified the divisions within the Western alliance, particularly in the contrasting responses of the United States and the European Union. Despite their proclaimed commitment to human rights and international justice, their differing stances on the ICC’s rulings, in relation to the Israeli war on Gaza, highlight strategic and geopolitical divergences. The U.S. has rejected the court’s legitimacy, prioritizing national security and diplomatic interests, whereas the EU has largely supported the ICC’s authority, emphasizing legal principles and accountability. This divide raises critical questions about the role of historical, political, and legal factors, particularly the legacy of postcolonialism, in shaping these selective endorsements or rejections of international legal decisions. Such selectivity threatens the credibility of global justice mechanisms and poses broader implications for the international legal order. This study seeks to uncover the motivations behind these responses and their potential impact on international law, human rights, and the evolving geopolitical landscape.

The analysis reveals a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, where the language of power is increasingly overshadowing the language of law and justice. Historically, the U.S. has been skeptical of international legal frameworks, particularly when they challenge its sovereignty or strategic interests. The 2002 American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) exemplifies this stance. The recent U.S. rejection of the ICC’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant further illustrates this trend, signaling that geopolitical interests now take precedence over adherence to international law, even in the face of clear allegations of genocide in Gaza by these Israeli leaders.

This transformation in U.S. policy mirrors findings in recent studies. (Jayaram & Munro, 2024) argue that U.S. foreign policy is increasingly focused on safeguarding national and strategic interests rather than advocating for the universal application of international law. Similarly, (Mercille, 2008) suggests that the U.S. selectively engages with international legal frameworks, only when they align with its broader geopolitical objectives. (Buzan, 2004) also emphasizes that power politics, rather than legal considerations, often drive U.S. actions, especially when international norms conflict with national security concerns.

In stark contrast, the European Union (EU) has consistently supported the ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, has repeatedly affirmed the legitimacy of the ICC, underscoring the EU's unwavering commitment to multilateralism and international law. This is echoed by Çolak (2021), who highlights the EU's steadfast support for the ICC, even in the face of opposition from certain member states, such as Hungary. (Sjursen, 2023) further emphasizes that the EU’s support for global justice mechanisms positions it as a key advocate for international legal accountability. This commitment to multilateralism and the rules-based international order is a cornerstone of the EU’s foreign policy.

The contrasting approaches of the U.S. and the EU underscore a growing division within the West. As noted by (Alsemeiri, Elsemeiri, Carroll, & Aljamal, 2024). this divide reflects a broader fracture within Western powers, with the U.S. adopting a more selective approach to international justice based on its national interests, while the EU remains dedicated to upholding global norms of accountability. (Groenleer, 2015) suggests that the U.S. and EU's divergent stances on the ICC are indicative of deeper geopolitical shifts, where the U.S. prioritizes power politics, and the EU seeks to maintain a stable, multilateral international order.

This growing and unexpected rift between the U.S. and the EU is more than a diplomatic disagreement. It signals a broader transformation in global power relations. (Muzaffar, Yaseen, & & Rahim, 2017) argue that the increasing divergence in foreign policy priorities between Western powers reflects the transition from a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. to a more multipolar global system. In this new system, regional powers like the EU, China, and Russia are asserting their influence, often challenging U.S. dominance. As a result, the ICC’s role in global justice is becoming more complex, as it must navigate these competing interests in an ever-shifting geopolitical landscape.

This transformation is reminiscent of Antonio Gramsci's famous quote: "The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters." Gramsci’s observation about the collapse of established systems and the emergence of new, often disruptive forces captures the essence of the current global order (Youvan, 2024). Just as Gramsci’s words preceded the outbreak of World War II, the present geopolitical shifts—marked by the U.S.'s retreat from multilateralism and the EU’s steadfast commitment to international law—may signal the dawn of a new and potentially tumultuous era. The growing division between the U.S. and the EU, along with the rise of regional powers, suggests that the world is on the cusp of a significant transformation, possibly leading to a new global conflict. This evolving situation highlights a critical juncture in international relations, where the language of law is increasingly sidelined by the language of power. As the U.S. and EU navigate their diverging paths, the future of global governance and international justice remains uncertain, shaped by the competing priorities of major powers in an increasingly multipolar world.

This analysis underscores a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, where power dynamics now overshadow adherence to international law, particularly in the case of the ICC’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. The U.S.’s selective approach to international law reveals its focus on national security and strategic interests, while the European Union remains committed to upholding international legal norms. This growing divide reflects broader geopolitical shifts, signaling the potential transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order. These changes indicate a collapse of the post-World War II international system, which was originally built on human rights and international law, highlighting the increasing challenges facing global governance and international legal frameworks. In response to the shift in U.S. foreign policy, several actions should be taken. First, it’s important to examine how the rise of regional powers like the EU, China, and Russia is reshaping international law and governance. This will help adapt legal frameworks to new global dynamics. Second, addressing the selective application of international law by Western powers, especially the U.S., is crucial to restoring the legitimacy of global justice mechanisms like the ICC. Lastly, there is a need to reassess the decline of the post-WWII international system and explore new frameworks that can uphold human rights and international law. These actions will provide key insights into the future of global governance and legal systems.

Limitations

This analysis offers a nuanced comparison of U.S. and EU discourse on the ICC’s arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. Though, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, our data set was confined to official statements and mainstream media excerpts (primarily Reuters) along with a selection of YouTube clips. This reliance on publicly archived statements may omit informal or behind‑the‑scenes diplomatic communications that could shed further light on decision‑making processes. Second, the hybrid discourse framework (DHA, CDA, Sociocognitive) is inherently interpretive and contingent on the researchers’ coding decisions. Although we employed established coding schemes and inter‑coder checks, some degree of subjectivity in categorizing topoi or framing devices remains. Third, our temporal window—October 2023 through early 2025—captures only the initial phases of reaction; as the situation evolves, subsequent statements or policy shifts (for example, follow‑up EU Council communiqués or U.S. Congressional hearings) may reveal additional or even contradictory discursive trends. Finally, we focused exclusively on two Western actors, thereby setting aside reactions from non‑Western states, regional organizations, and civil society groups whose perspectives could nuance or contest our West‑centric findings. Taken together, these constraints suggest that our conclusions about “power versus law” in Western responses should be viewed as a first step, rather than a definitive account.

Recommendations for further studies

Based on these limitations, we sould suggest furture research could address these gaps in some ways. Future research should broaden the analytical scope to encompass non‑Western actors, such as Global South governments, the African Union, and Middle Eastern regional organizations and adopt a mixed‑methods design that integrates corpus‑based content analysis of official and social‑media discourse with semi‑structured interviews of diplomats and ICC practitioners. Moreover, applying the Discourse‑Historical, Critical Discourse Analysis, and Sociocognitive framework to additional ICC cases such as the South Africa v. Israel ICJ referral, Ukraine warrants, and earlier African prosecutions will test the validity of the “power versus law” thesis across diverse geopolitical contexts and not only in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Complementary impact assessments linking identified discursive strategies to measurable outcomes (e.g., sanctions imposition, aid reallocation, treaty renegotiations) would furnish empirical evidence of the causal pathways through which international legal rhetoric influences state behaviour.