By Andrew Paul Klein
Abstract
This paper applies the analytical distinction between mirrors (surfaces that reflect assumptions back at the observer) and windows (surfaces that transmit information from outside) to the architecture of international law. It argues that the post-WWII legal order — the Nuremberg principles, the Genocide Convention, the International Criminal Court — functions as a mirror: it reflects the values of the states that built it while protecting those states from accountability. The paper examines the Palestinian case as a window onto this architecture: the ICJ genocide case, the ICC arrest warrants for Israeli officials, and the US campaign to dismantle the Court. It documents the historical precedents of US impunity in Iran and Okinawa. It concludes that national sovereignty, as practised by powerful states, overrides international law, and that the architecture of impunity is not a failure of the system but a feature of its design.
1. Introduction: The Mirror and the Window
The mirror is the most dangerous surface in any room. It does not lie. It tells the truth. But the truth it tells is the truth of the observer. It reflects back what is already there. It catches nothing new.
A window is different. A window transmits. It brings in weather from outside, a street you have not walked, a face you have not met. A window carries information. A mirror carries none.
This paper applies the distinction to international law.
The post-WWII legal order — the Nuremberg principles, the Genocide Convention, the International Criminal Court — was constructed as a window. It was meant to transmit accountability across borders. It was meant to catch what sovereign states would otherwise hide.
The paper argues that it functions as a mirror. It reflects the values of the states that built it. It protects those states from accountability. And the states that are not protected — the weak, the defeated, the colonised — are the ones who experience the law’s full weight.
The Palestinian case is the window that reveals this. Not because Palestine is special. Because Palestine is where the architecture is most visible.
2. The Promises: The Mirror of Post-WWII Legal Order
2.1 Nuremberg and the Promise of Accountability
The Nuremberg trials (1945–1946) established the principle that individuals could be held accountable for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The promise was universal. The Nuremberg principles were affirmed by the UN General Assembly in 1950. They were meant to apply to all states, all leaders, all peoples.
The promise was not kept. As one analysis notes, the “foundational pledge that no atrocity would go unanswered by international justice” was born of the Rome Statute and the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. The pledge was the mirror. It reflected the aspiration. It did not reflect the reality.
2.2 The Genocide Convention
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) was the first human rights treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly. It defined genocide, prohibited it, and required states to prevent and punish it.
The Convention has been invoked. It has been adjudicated. It has not been enforced against the powerful. South Africa invoked it against Israel in December 2023. The ICJ issued provisional measures. Israel has not complied. The Court has no enforcement mechanism. The Convention is a window that is treated as a mirror.
2.3 The International Criminal Court
The Rome Statute was agreed in 1998. The ICC was established in 2002. The Court has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. It has 125 member states. It has issued indictments, conducted trials, and secured convictions.
But the Court has structural limitations. It relies on state consent. It depends on the UN Security Council for enforcement. Its prosecutions have been selective. As one analysis notes, “the ICJ’s reliance on state consent and UN Security Council enforcement often weakens its impact, while the ICC’s jurisdictional limits and selective prosecutions raise concerns about equity”.
The Court is the mirror of the states that built it. It reflects their values. It protects them from accountability.
Status: Established for the promises. Established for the structural limitations.
3. The Outcomes: The Window of Palestinian Experience
3.1 The ICJ Genocide Case
South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel at the ICJ in December 2023, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza. The Court issued provisional measures in January, March, and May 2024. The measures are binding. Israel has not complied.
As of September 2026, South Africa reported that “with the three provisional measures, the state of Israel is still not respecting that injunction of the Court“. The underlying case on the merits remains ongoing, with South Africa’s Reply due in November 2027.
The ICJ has no enforcement mechanism. Its orders are binding in law. They are not binding in practice. The window is open. The mirror is closed.
3.2 The ICC Arrest Warrants
On 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The warrants remain outstanding. The ICC’s Prosecutor’s Office has not revoked them, despite US sanctions.
The warrants are a window. They transmit the judgment of the Court. But the window is covered by a mirror: the United States does not recognise the ICC. As Trump stated in July 2026, “Benjamin Netanyahu will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America“. The US is not a member of the Court. The warrant is not recognised in US law. There is no legal mechanism to enforce it.
The window exists. The mirror blocks it.
3.3 The Structure of Impunity
The structure is precise. The Court can issue warrants. The states that are members can enforce them. The states that are not members are not bound. And the most powerful state in the system — the United States — is not a member. It has not ratified the Rome Statute. It has actively campaigned against the Court.
The impunity is not a failure of the architecture. It is a feature of the design. The mirror reflects the power of the states that built it. The window shows what the mirror hides.
Status: Established for the ICJ case and the ICC warrants. Established for the US non-recognition. Inference for the structure of impunity.
4. The Destruction of the Court: The US Campaign Against the ICC
4.1 The Historical Campaign
The United States has been hostile to the ICC from the beginning. Under the Clinton administration, the US delegation voted against the Rome Statute in 1998. President Clinton signed the Statute on 31 December 2000, the last day it was open for signature, but said ratification was not imminent. His successor, George W. Bush, “unsigned” the treaty in May 2002 and engaged in a “full-scale campaign against the ICC”.
The Bush administration pushed the UN Security Council to exempt US personnel from ICC jurisdiction. It negotiated bilateral immunity agreements with other states, threatening to cut military training and development assistance for those who refused. The American Service-Members Protection Act (ASPA) authorised the use of force to free any US citizen detained in The Hague.
The campaign was not a failure. It was a success. The US created a structure of impunity for its own personnel.
4.2 The Current Escalation
On 6 February 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14203 imposing restrictions on ICC officials. By December 2025, 11 ICC prosecutors and judges had been sanctioned.
On 9 October 2026, the Trump administration imposed sweeping new sanctions on the ICC as part of its campaign to “dismantle the tribunal“. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the sanctions, stating: “We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate against us”. He added: “The United States and the American people are not subject to the jurisdiction of this fake ICC”.
The sanctions block any assets the ICC has in US jurisdictions and set a six-month timeline for US companies and individuals with business with the court to wind that business down. The sanctions are structured to allow the court and member countries time to meet US demands.
Rubio stated the objective plainly: “Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC”.
4.3 The Reason
The US has stated the reason. Rubio said: “President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans”. The US objects to the ICC’s investigation into actions of US soldiers in Afghanistan and the arrest warrants for Israeli officials including Netanyahu.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, condemned the sanctions. She stated that they “strike at the very heart of the promise born of the Rome Statute and the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials: a foundational pledge that no atrocity would go unanswered by international justice“. She added: “Sanctions send a chilling message to victims of atrocities and their advocates, who rely on judges and prosecutors for accountability, repair and reparation”.
The US is not trying to improve the Court. It is trying to destroy it. The reason is impunity.
Status: Established for the historical campaign and the current sanctions. Established for the stated reason. Inference for the objective of impunity.
5. Historical Precedents: Iran and Okinawa
5.1 Iran
The United States has a documented record of seeking impunity for its actions in Iran.
In 2026, as the US committed military actions in Iran, the Trump administration simultaneously vowed to dismantle the ICC. As Reed Brody of the Human Rights Watch stated: “Marco Rubio knows that bombing Iran without Security Council authorization constitutes aggression under the U.N. Charter. This is an insurance policy against accountability for crimes that the Trump administration is committing in plain sight”.
The pattern is consistent. The US takes military action. The US then acts to dismantle the institution that might hold it accountable. The impunity is not an accident. It is the objective.
The US has also ignored unfavourable ICJ judgments in the past. In the Nicaragua case, the US refused to accept the Court’s jurisdiction over disputes related to its military actions. The US has accepted the ICJ Statute but has interpreted its reservations in a way that effectively excludes the Court’s jurisdiction over its military actions.
5.2 Okinawa
The United States has a similar record in Okinawa.
The Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of 1960 is “often accused of rendering U.S. military bases virtually extraterritorial and immune to Japan’s domestic laws“. The agreement gives US forces “unfair treatment” and limits Japan’s control over suspects.
The practical consequence is impunity. In 2025, Okinawa prefectural police handled 101 criminal cases involving US military personnel, civilian employees, and their family members — the highest figure since 2003. The assembly has repeatedly called for revision of the SOFA, including provisions on the handing over of suspects.
The most recent case involved a US Marine arrested on suspicion of killing a 39-year-old woman in Naha. The Okinawa Prefectural Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a fundamental revision of the SOFA. As the assembly stated: “We are seeing the limitations of the U.S. military’s training program and ability to maintain discipline, and have to say that it is not functioning as an organization”.
The pattern is the same. The US negotiates agreements that shield its personnel from local law. When crimes occur, the local population demands accountability. The US resists revision. The impunity persists.
Status: Established for the Iran and Okinawa records. Inference for the pattern of impunity.
6. The Double Standard: The Mirror of Selectivity
The architecture of impunity is not limited to the United States. It is a structural feature of international criminal law.
As Andreas Schüller of the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights documents, “international criminal law is often seen and criticized as a hegemonic tool, applied opportunistically and inconsistently by powerful states“. While trials concerning international crimes in third states take place before courts in European countries, “investigations and prosecutions of European actors or their allies remain the exception”.
Torture allegations against British soldiers in Iraq have not led to prosecution. Allegations of international crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond have not led to prosecution. Meanwhile, “countless other situations of mass atrocities, in Ethiopia, Sudan or Yemen, remain largely unaddressed by any comparable international mobilization for accountability”.
The double standard is documented. As one analysis notes, “the rule of might over right: It telegraphs to those in power” that accountability is selective.
The mirror reflects the power of the states that built it. The window shows what the mirror hides.
Status: Established.
7. Sovereignty Versus International Law
The question asked is whether national sovereignty overrides international law. The evidence supports a qualified answer.
For most states, international law is binding. The Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute, the Geneva Conventions — these are treaties that states have ratified and are obligated to uphold. The ICJ’s provisional measures are binding. The ICC’s arrest warrants are binding on member states.
For powerful states, sovereignty overrides international law. The United States is not a member of the ICC. It has not ratified the Rome Statute. It has negotiated bilateral immunity agreements that shield its personnel. It has imposed sanctions on the Court. It has stated that it will never allow the Court to prosecute Americans.
The structure is not a failure of international law. It is a feature of its design. The law is only as strong as the states that enforce it. The states that enforce it are the states that are subject to it. The states that are not subject to it are the states that enforce it. The mirror reflects the power of the states that built it.
As the UN Special Rapporteur stated: “Judges, prosecutors and all those engaged in the enforcement of the rule of law and accountability for international crimes must not be subjected to intimidation, reprisals or punishment for carrying out their professional duties“. The statement is a mirror. It reflects the aspiration. It does not reflect the reality.
Status: Established for the legal framework. Established for the US exception. Inference for the structural function.
8. Conclusion: The Mirror and the Window
The promises of international law are a mirror. They reflect the values of the states that built the system. They reflect the aspiration of accountability. They reflect the belief that no atrocity should go unanswered.
The outcomes for the Palestinian people are a window. They transmit the reality of impunity. They show that the law applies to some states and not others. They show that the ICJ’s orders are binding in law and ignored in practice. They show that the ICC’s warrants are issued and blocked. They show that the states that built the system are the states that are protected from it.
The United States is not destroying the ICC because it is ineffective. It is destroying the ICC because it is effective — against the wrong states. The ICC has prosecuted Sudanese militia leaders and issued warrants for Israeli officials. It has investigated US actions in Afghanistan. The US cannot tolerate a Court that might hold its personnel accountable. The sanctions are the mirror. They reflect the power of the state that imposes them.
The window is the Palestinian experience. It shows what the mirror hides. It shows that sovereignty, as practised by powerful states, overrides international law. It shows that impunity is not an accident. It is the architecture.
The record is kept. The mirror is named. And the window is still open.
Claim -Status- Summary
# -Claim- Status
1 -Nuremberg established universal accountability- Established
2- Genocide Convention requires prevention and punishment- Established
3- ICC has jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity- Established
4 -ICJ issued provisional measures against Israel (Jan, Mar, May 2024)- Established
5- Israel has not complied with the measures -Established
6- ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant (Nov 2024)- Established
7- US does not recognise the ICC and will not arrest Netanyahu -Established
8- US imposed sweeping sanctions on ICC (Oct 2026)- Established
9- Rubio: “Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC” -Established
10 -11 ICC prosecutors and judges sanctioned- Established
11- US ignored ICJ jurisdiction in Nicaragua case -Established
12 -US uses Iran actions as reason to dismantle ICC -Established
13- Okinawa SOFA grants US extraterritorial privileges -Established
14- 101 criminal cases involving US personnel in Okinawa (2025) -Established
15- International criminal law is applied selectively- Established
16- US immunity architecture creates impunity -Inference
17 -Sovereignty overrides international law for powerful states -Inference
18 -The mirror reflects power; the window shows impunity -Inference
Method notes- Claims are classified throughout as Established, Inference, or Speculation. The paper applies the “Mirror and Window” analytical framework to the gap between the promises of international law and the outcomes for the Palestinian people. It examines US efforts to dismantle the International Criminal Court, the architecture of impunity, and the historical precedents of Iran and Okinawa. It does not adjudicate the guilt or innocence of any individual. It examines the structure that determines who is held accountable and who is not.
References
1. TASS. (2026, October 9). US ready for diplomatic solution around ICC, despite sanctions — State Secretary.
2. Reuters. (2026, October 9). EXCLUSIVE: US imposes sanctions on ICC hours after former judge wins Nobel Peace Prize.
3. The Canadian Press. (2026, October 9). US hits International Criminal Court with sweeping sanctions as part of drive to dismantle tribunal.
4. OHCHR. (2026, January 26). USA: UN expert demands withdrawal of sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors.
5. The Japan Times. (2026, October 9). Okinawa resolution calls for revision of U.S. forces pact after murder.
6. China Daily. (2026, October 7). Okinawa murder arrest reignites anger over US bases.
7. SAnews. (2026, September 24). World has a duty to stop suffering in Gaza – Lamola.
8. Afronomicslaw. (2025, March 25). Some Reflections on Recent Developments on Double Standards and Selectivity in International Criminal Law.
9. Taipei Times. (2025, December 18). The age of impunity, where prosecuting atrocities is a rare feat.
10. Reuters. (2026, July 20). Netanyahu will not be arrested in US, Trump says.
11. Refworld. (2009, June 22). European countries should defend the International Criminal Court.
12. Policy Center for the New South. (2025, April 25). The International Justice System: The ICJ, the ICC, the Challenge and Risk of Double Standards.
13. Foreign Affairs. (1998, November 1). Fiddling in Rome.
Andrew Paul Klein is a writer and analyst based in Boronia, Victoria. He accepts funding from no one.
