The meddling tribunal, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is out of place in the modern world, appears to be in bigger trouble. This likely stemmed from its showcasing to the world the prosecution of former President Rodrigo Duterte, who was whisked off to the tribunal by his political enemies.

An alliance led by the United States seems to be evolving against the ICC, which may lead to the eventual downfall of the institution that is among the woke culture’s Pharos.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orbán, and US President Donald Trump have been meeting frequently, suggesting the formation of a united front to pursue a range of actions to challenge the court’s legitimacy.

The actions taken by a Trump-led front could be wide-ranging, beginning with encouraging withdrawals from the tribunal.

Hungary’s announced exit on 3 April sets a precedent. Netanyahu and Orbán could lobby other nations, particularly those with nationalist governments or grievances against the ICC, to follow suit.

Thus far, some states have indicated their intention to leave the meddling court, such as the Czech Republic, whose leaders questioned the ICC’s warrant against Netanyahu; Poland and non-European Union states.

The Philippines withdrew from the statute that created the ICC in 2019.

A wave of withdrawals would work towards weakening the ICC’s global standing.

Ties among significant powers outside the ICC, such as the United States, Russia and China, could strengthen the movement that rejects the court’s jurisdiction.

Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump last February included plans for the ICC, while Orbán’s alignment with Trump-era policies suggests an informal alliance is already in motion.

What is lacking now are strong joint statements or summits condemning the ICC to formalize the bloc.

An alliance against the ICC is a bold gambit that strikes deep into the hypocrisy of global institutions.

Its immediate impact might be symbolic for now, but its ripple effects could reshape perceptions of sovereignty, justice, and the role of international courts.

The ICC’s perceived overreach into nations’ domestic affairs is becoming a point of contention among many nations struggling against external impositions, particularly developing nations that are required to adhere to Western norms.

Through bilateral diplomacy, trade deals, or energy agreements such as Israel’s gas exports or Hungary’s role in EU energy routes, ICC signatories could be dissuaded from enforcing arrest warrants, effectively creating safe zones for targeted leaders.

The moves by nations that are adverse to the ICC while underlining their judicial systems may provide an international model.

Hungary, the Philippines and other nations that broke free of the clutches of the international tribunal could pass laws nullifying ICC obligations retroactively, even before their withdrawal is complete, emphasizing that national courts supersede international bodies.

Following US precedent, such as Trump’s 2020 sanctions on ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, countries in the alliance could impose travel bans, asset freezes and other penalties on ICC judges and staff, deterring enforcement efforts.

In its struggle for relevance, the ICC has become an existential threat to national sovereignty.

The union should project the ICC as a corrupt and biased institution that acts as an attack dog for Western liberals.

Hungary’s refusal to arrest Netanyahu during his recent visit could become a formal policy, ensuring that leaders under ICC warrants can travel freely among allied states.

With the global pushback against liberal democratic norms, the alliance’s success hinges on reshaping international accountability norms.

The Duterte saga has revealed to nations facing domestic challenges that external forces, imbued with a sense of superiority, can be wielded against leaders whose opponents share the same hypocritical stance as the ICC.