America without justice: destroying the legitimacy of its leadership

Writer: Dr. Adnan Naeem

US President Donald Trump's attack on South African judge Navi Pillay, following the announcement of her winning the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, and his Secretary of State Marco Rubio's threat to dismantle the International Criminal Court reveal a crisis that goes beyond a dispute with a human rights figure or judicial institution. It is a civil crisis, a power that is at the forefront of the international system, but it faces the tools of justice when accountability approaches its interests and allies. Trump republished a statement attacking Pillay and accusing her of hostility to America and Israel, while his administration announced sanctions against the court itself.

The coincidence of the sanctions with the announcement of the award does not prove that they came in retaliation, but it brings together two images of one political position: questioning the symbols of justice, and putting pressure on the institutions that exercise them. When the protection of an ally takes precedence over the independence of the judiciary, the world has the right to ask: With what legitimacy does Washington monopolize the leadership of a system that demands others respect its rules, and then tries to disrupt it when it restricts it?

There is no mandate in the United Nations Charter for the United States to run the world. Its status is a product of military and economic power and political influence, but the ability to impose decisions does not automatically grant leadership legitimacy. The leadership is responsible for protecting peace and common institutions, accepting legal restrictions, and respecting the rights of peoples, especially when they conflict with national interests.

From this angle, the ICC threat represents a move beyond legal objection to political coercion. Washington can debate the court's jurisdiction and procedures, but punishing the judges, prosecutors, and the institution targets its ability to function. The court rejected the new sanctions and affirmed the continuation of performing its mission independently and on an informed basisLaw and evidence.

Defending justice requires precision: the ICC considers the criminal responsibility of individuals, and its arrest warrants are not final convictions. The International Court of Justice is the main judicial body of the United Nations and adjudicates disputes between countries. But the difference between the two institutions does not change the principle: the independence of the judiciary is tested by its ability to consider cases without submitting to the threat of the powerful.

Palestine provides the clearest evidence of the contradiction between the rhetoric of American leadership and its practice. In 2009, the US House of Representatives’ resolution on the Goldstone Report called for opposition to its adoption or continued consideration in international forums, even though the report addressed violations by both Israeli forces and Palestinian factions. This was pressure against pursuing a path to accountability that included both parties.

In February 2011, Washington vetoed a draft resolution condemning settlements, despite the support of the other fourteen members of the Security Council. After the American recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the General Assembly rejected measures aimed at changing the city’s status by a majority of 128 countries to nine. Here the gap appeared between the broad international position and the American decision biased towards Israel.

The disruption was repeated during the Gaza war. On June 4, 2025, the US veto dropped a draft resolution calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, despite the rest of the Council members voting in favor of it. Then Washington used its veto again in September against a ceasefire and aid project. In doing so, it disabled a collective tool that could have increased pressure to protect civilians.

These positions weaken the credibility of American mediation. The mediator protects one of the partiesFrom pressure and accountability, his balance is disturbed, and his ability to manage conflict becomes greater than his ability to produce a fair settlement. When the cost of violation decreases due to diplomatic protection, incentives to change behavior weaken, and the causes of conflict remain.

The evidence is not limited to Palestine. In the 1986 Nicaragua case, the International Court of Justice ruled that the United States had violated its obligations of non-interference, non-use of force and respect for sovereignty. This is a judicial condemnation that goes beyond mere political objection to Washington's behavior.

In Iraq in 2003, the United States led the war without a new and explicit mandate from the Security Council, relying with Britain on an interpretation of previous resolutions. Kofi Annan later asserted that the war was not in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The incident revealed the danger of a major power unilaterally interpreting the terms of the use of force and implementing its decision outside the Council’s consensus.

These situations are not legally equivalent; The veto is a power recognized by the Charter, while the judicial ruling proving a violation is a different matter. But politically, it reveals a recurring pattern of prioritizing American will and the protection of allies over the effectiveness of joint institutions. The argument does not need to say that America created all the crises; It is enough that some of its policies contributed to creating crises and perpetuating others, while weakening the tools to address them.

Therefore, the need for a multipolar system becomes a requirement to restrict the monopoly of power and decision-making. But multipolarity does not automatically guarantee justice; Major powers may share spheres of influence or protect their allies. What is required is pluralism linked to the rule of law, broader representation of developing countries, protection of the independence of the judiciary, and application of the same standards to all powers.

And it startsBy reducing the ability to disrupt the response to mass crimes, ensuring stable funding and services for judicial and humanitarian institutions, diversifying mediation frameworks, and linking military and economic relations with respect for international obligations. For Palestine, it means building coalitions that transform support for rights into actions that protect them, and give Palestinians a decisive role in determining their future.

This record undermines the United States' eligibility to monopolize leadership of the international system. The ability to lead is tested when the law restricts interests, and when accountability extends to allies. The world needs a distribution of power that expands protection and prevents the granting of political immunity. Whoever demands leadership of the world, and then threatens justice when it approaches him, personally destroys the legitimacy of his leadership.