Duterte, Netanyahu, and Putin: The ICC’s Power Play

[Safia K Southey is a student at Columbia Law School, with experience at Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Justice and Accountability, and the International Center for Transitional Justice. She focuses on international law, Middle East policy, and alternative justice mechanisms.]

On March 11, 2025, something unusual happened—the International Criminal Court (ICC) secured the arrest of a former head of state. Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was detained on charges of crimes against humanity. It wasn’t just about Duterte. His arrest signaled a shift: the ICC, long dismissed as weak, is now forcing global leaders to take it seriously.

The ICC has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Critics once called the Court powerless, a tool used mostly against African leaders. But now, it is challenging figures from major states, including democracies, and doing so while they are still in power. The key question is whether this signals lasting change or a temporary flex before political reality reasserts itself.

The ICC’s Shift from Symbolism to Strategy

The ICC is no longer just a venue for post-conflict prosecutions. In the past, trials happened years after leaders fell from power. Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević was arrested only after he was politically expendable. Charles Taylor of Liberia faced justice only after his regional influence collapsed. Now, the Court is moving while conflicts are still ongoing.

The Netanyahu case proves this shift. His warrant was issued during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, not after. It has already shaped ceasefire negotiations. France leveraged the warrant in talks with Hezbollah. Netanyahu’s ability to travel is now constrained. The ICC didn’t just pass judgment; it disrupted political calculations.

Duterte’s arrest reinforces this, though with an important difference: he was no longer in office. That sets him apart from Netanyahu and Putin, both of whom remain in power and are protected by the legal and political shields that come with it. The Court’s challenge to them is more precarious—and more politically explosive. The Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019, assuming that would shield him. Evidently, it didn’t. His detention proves that leaving the ICC isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. Rather, jurisdiction lingers, and arrest remains a possibility.

Putin faces similar restrictions. His indictment has made diplomatic engagements harder. South Africa, an ICC member, had to decide whether to arrest him when he planned to attend a BRICS summit. The Court, even if imperfect, is imposing real consequences.

October 7 and the Fracturing of Legal Consensus

Why is the ICC becoming more aggressive? Part of the answer lies in the world’s shifting political and legal landscape, particularly since Hamas’s attack on October 7 and Israel’s response.

The ICC’s case against Netanyahu has exposed deep divides. Western governments, quick to support the Court’s indictment of Putin, are rejecting its authority when it comes to Israel. The U.S. has openly defied the ICC and threatened retaliation. Meanwhile, the Global South sees the Netanyahu case as a rare instance of the ICC applying pressure beyond its usual targets.

This polarization is dangerous for the Court. If legal accountability is seen as selective, the ICC risks undermining itself. Washington’s refusal to acknowledge the Netanyahu case while supporting the Putin indictment highlights the double standard. If the ICC is seen as only prosecuting politically isolated leaders while avoiding those backed by major powers, it risks losing credibility. The deeper problem is structural: any move the Court makes will provoke backlash from some states. It’s not just about who gets prosecuted—it’s about whether the enforcement is perceived as consistent and universal.

At the same time, the Court’s actions are forcing responses from states that previously ignored it. Israel is pressuring European governments not to enforce the warrant. Russia has issued retaliatory indictments against ICC officials. The U.S. is signaling that it will protect Israeli officials at any cost. These are signs that the Court’s decisions, once seen as symbolic, now matter enough to provoke real backlash.

France, Hezbollah, and the ICC as a Tool of Leverage

The Netanyahu warrant is already shaping diplomacy. France has used it as leverage in discussions with Hezbollah. This wasn’t just symbolic posturing but rather had real effects on the ground.

Despite being unfriendly to Hezbollah, France has strategic interests in Lebanon and opposed Israeli demands that would have turned southern Lebanon into a de facto security zone. Israel wanted the right to launch unilateral strikes even under a ceasefire. France rejected this, arguing it violated Lebanese sovereignty. It urged Lebanon to reject the deal, frustrating U.S. negotiators. Israel, in response, sought to exclude France from any future peacekeeping role.

But France had something Israel wanted: diplomatic cooperation and legitimacy in the ceasefire process. While France could not cancel or suspend the ICC warrant, its stance on whether it would enforce it had real political weight.. That leverage became part of the negotiations. Netanyahu’s legal troubles were now a liability in negotiations. According to Israeli state media, Israel and the U.S. conditioned France’s role in the ceasefire process on an assurance that Netanyahu would not be arrested if he traveled to a French-brokered venue. While it’s unclear whether the French executive can make such guarantees—ICC enforcement depends on judicial authorities—France’s willingness to soften its position mattered. It helped unlock Israeli concessions in the ceasefire deal. Nonetheless, Paris complied, reversing its initial position that it “will always apply international law.” In exchange, it won key concessions: Israel gave up its demand for unilateral enforcement and agreed to submit ceasefire disputes to a U.S.-French monitoring body.

This episode shows that ICC rulings, while often dismissed as toothless, can shift power balances. Israel and the U.S. saw the warrant as a chip worth trading. It wasn’t enforced, but it mattered. The arrest order didn’t just sit in a legal vacuum; it shaped military and diplomatic realities. Lebanese civilians, initially forced to flee, returned to their homes under a ceasefire structured in part by legal pressure. The Hague’s ruling didn’t bring Netanyahu to trial, but it constrained his government’s options. That alone is a shift.

The ICC as an Active Player in Global Politics

Critics argue the ICC lacks enforcement power because it has no police force. But enforcement isn’t just about arrests—it’s about leverage.

Netanyahu and Putin may never stand trial, but they are already dealing with the consequences of their indictments. Duterte now will. His arrest sends a message to others: legal exposure doesn’t disappear when you leave office. For all three, the political cost is real. Their travel options are limited. Their diplomatic leverage is weakened. Their political opponents, both domestically and internationally, now have a legal framework to use against them.

More importantly, the ICC is shifting from a retrospective institution to an active player in global negotiations. Its rulings are no longer just about historical accountability; they are influencing real-time diplomacy. This is new.

Take Netanyahu. His warrant complicates Israeli-European relations. Some European countries may be legally required to arrest him if he lands on their soil. Even if they don’t enforce the warrant, the threat hangs over him. It weakens his hand in diplomatic discussions.

Putin’s case is similar. His indictment forced Russia to reroute diplomatic strategies. The warrant limits where he can travel safely. It also isolates Russia further, making negotiations with Western countries even more fraught.

Duterte’s arrest is the starkest warning yet. He once ruled with impunity, openly mocking the ICC. Now, he is in custody. That fact alone shifts political calculations worldwide.

Will the ICC’s New Power Last?

The biggest risk to the ICC is inconsistency. If it only prosecutes certain leaders while ignoring others, it will collapse under accusations of bias. The U.S. has never faced accountability for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Netanyahu is prosecuted but no Western leader ever is, the Court’s credibility will erode.

For the ICC to sustain its newfound influence, it must pursue all war crimes, not just those committed by politically convenient targets. If the Court becomes another tool of geopolitics rather than a neutral enforcer of law, its power will fade.

Right now, the Court is at a critical moment. If it enforces its decisions effectively, it could redefine global justice. If it fails, it will confirm what its critics have always argued—that international law applies only to the weak, never to the powerful.

Duterte’s arrest suggests the ICC might be at the start of a new era. But for that to be true, it must prove that no leader—not even those backed by the West—is beyond its reach. The next few years will decide whether this is a lasting shift or a brief moment of legal theater before business as usual resumes.

The world is watching.