In a week marked by high-stakes legal and political drama, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its counterpart, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have taken center stage with cases that span continents and ignite passionate debate. From the ongoing genocide proceedings against Israel at The Hague, to the controversy surrounding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s possible visit to New York City, and the ICC’s persistent efforts to determine the mental fitness of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, the reach and limits of international law are under the microscope.
Israel’s legal battles at the ICJ have been simmering for nearly a year, following South Africa’s formal accusation of genocide against the Jewish state. According to Haaretz, these proceedings began well before November 2025 and have already produced interim orders from the court. However, a final judgment could be years away, with legal experts warning that “the outcomes of the proceedings may follow Israel for years to come.” The gravity of the case is not lost on observers, as the world watches to see how the ICJ will navigate such a charged and complex dispute.
Meanwhile, the ICC, an entirely separate judicial body operating under the Rome Statute, has thrust itself into the spotlight with arrest warrants and ongoing investigations. The most headline-grabbing development in recent days involves Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Inna Vernikov, a Jewish member of the New York City Council representing parts of Brooklyn, extended an invitation to Netanyahu to visit New York City on January 1, 2026—the same day Zohran Mamdani is set to be inaugurated as mayor. The invitation, dated November 10, 2025, was described by Vernikov as a “great honor,” intended to reaffirm “the deep and enduring bond between the State of Israel and the people of New York City, home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.”
Yet, this gesture has collided with local political tensions. Mayor-elect Mamdani has publicly declared that he would have Netanyahu arrested if the Israeli leader sets foot in the city, citing an arrest warrant issued by the ICC. Vernikov, in her letter, dismissed Mamdani’s comments as “irresponsible and frankly absurd,” emphasizing that Netanyahu is “the duly elected prime minister of the State of Israel, a democratic nation that stands as a beacon of hope, freedom, western values, resilience and strength in a region surrounded by tyranny and terror.”
The question of whether such an arrest could even take place in the United States is not merely academic. Joseph Weiler, a respected professor at New York University School of Law and director of the Jean Monnet Center, told JNS that under international law, heads of state and government have “absolute immunity,” even in the face of the most serious accusations. The ICC, for its part, operates outside the United Nations framework and only has jurisdiction over countries that have ratified the Rome Statute—neither Israel nor the United States is among them.
Weiler explained, “States that are parties to the statute are both under a duty and have the right to arrest even a head of state, since the general immunity is deemed to be waived, provided both parties—the arresting state and the head of state in question—are parties to the Rome Statute.” However, because the U.S. is not a party, “the United States has neither the duty nor the right to arrest Netanyahu following an arrest warrant issued by the ICC.” He added that the only conceivable exception would be if the United Nations Security Council referred the case, but this scenario remains purely hypothetical given the likelihood of an American veto.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has weighed in sharply. Marshall Wittmann, an AIPAC spokesperson, told JNS that the ICC “has turned itself into a kangaroo court,” insisting that its “bogus arrest warrants against Israeli officials have no standing in the United States.” Wittmann also noted that AIPAC supports legislation introduced by Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Representative Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) that would prevent state and local law enforcement from arresting foreign nationals within the U.S. solely on the basis of an ICC warrant.
This legislative push underscores the ongoing friction between international legal institutions and national sovereignty. The ICC’s reach—while formidable on paper—faces significant resistance from powerful states that are not signatories to its founding treaty. The United States, in particular, has a long history of skepticism toward international criminal jurisdiction over its citizens and allies.
Across the Pacific, the ICC is grappling with another complex case: the mental fitness of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte. As reported by Philippine Star, on November 12, 2025, the ICC submitted a new shortlist of six neuropsychology experts to Pre-Trial Chamber I. This move followed an October 3 order to propose alternative candidates after Duterte’s defense team sought to disqualify a previously appointed neuropsychologist. The Registry’s search was exhaustive, reaching out to 18 neuropsychologists and more than 16 hospitals, universities, and research institutions across Europe, including Belgium, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark. Six experts confirmed their willingness to undertake the assignment.
The ICC’s investigation into Duterte concerns alleged crimes against humanity committed during his administration’s controversial anti-drug campaign. On August 18, 2025, Duterte’s legal team requested an indefinite adjournment of proceedings, arguing that he suffered from “cognitive impairment in multiple domains” and was unable to participate meaningfully in the case. Citing Rule 135(4) of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, they claimed his condition was unlikely to improve. The Chamber responded on September 8 by ordering a medical assessment to determine whether any medical condition affects Duterte’s ability to engage in pre-trial proceedings and to identify any special measures required. A neurologist, a forensic psychiatrist, and a neuropsychologist were appointed on September 24, but the defense quickly challenged the neuropsychologist’s appointment, prompting the search for a replacement.
As the parties await the Chamber’s next steps on expert appointments, the case remains a focal point for those following the ICC’s efforts to hold powerful leaders accountable. The process highlights the technical and procedural hurdles that can arise even before substantive legal arguments are addressed, especially when questions of mental fitness and fair trial rights are in play.
Taken together, these three stories reveal the enduring complexities and controversies that surround international justice. Whether it’s the slow grind of proceedings at the ICJ in The Hague, the political theater of arrest threats in New York, or the painstaking search for qualified experts in the Duterte case, the pursuit of accountability on the world stage is anything but straightforward. The coming months—and likely years—promise further twists as these cases unfold, with outcomes that could reverberate far beyond the courtroom walls.
