Selective Justice? Empirically Testing for Double Standards in the ICC's Palestine and Ukraine Investigations

Despite its proclaimed dedication to universal justice, the International Criminal Court has long been accused of double standards in its administration of justice. To evaluate the veracity of these claims, this study conducts a comparative empirical analysis of ICC prosecutorial practice, examining procedural and discursive patterns across two contemporary investigations to gauge the institution’s consistency across different geopolitical contexts.
Through quantitative and qualitative analysis of prosecutorial timelines, resource allocation, field presence, and official communications, this research documents significant disparities in how the Ukraine and Palestine situations are treated by the Office of the Prosecutor. The empirical findings reveal substantial variations in prosecutorial urgency, resource deployment, and rhetorical framing. Discourse analysis of official statements further reveals systematic variations in the sequencing and characterisation of victims and perpetrators through linguistic choices, particularly in ways that disadvantage Palestinian parties.
The inconsistencies identified risk fostering a perception of a two-tiered system, even as the institution takes politically costly steps to uphold its neutrality, thereby challenging the Court’s legitimacy and undermining its claim to impartiality. The findings ultimately suggest that the problem may be more nuanced than a simple “double standard” accusation, pointing instead to more subtle, yet significant, asymmetries in the administration of justice.