When Rivals Agree: China and EU Back ICC Warrants While Washington Stands Alone
Beijing and Brussels find unlikely common ground on enforcing international law against Netanyahu, as the United States sanctions ICC judges and prosecutors.
China and the European Union have found themselves on the same side of the International Criminal Court debate, both backing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while Washington takes the opposite stance. The unlikely alignment between strategic rivals highlights a widening transatlantic rift over international law enforcement.
Rivals United, Allies Divided
Beijing's Foreign Ministry said Israel should be "isolated globally" over its conduct in Gaza, according to statements reported by Chinese state media. The position mirrors that of most EU member states, which have confirmed they would enforce ICC arrest warrants if Netanyahu were to visit their territory.
Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Spain have all stated they would comply with their Rome Statute obligations. Belgium's foreign ministry said it would execute the arrest warrant "without hesitation."
This comes as China formally joined South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, a move we covered when Beijing first intervened. The Chinese intervention, while largely symbolic given Beijing is not an ICC member, allows it to position itself as a defender of international law.
Washington Stands Alone
The United States has taken the opposite approach. Washington has sanctioned ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, several ICC judges, and even UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.
China has been quick to seize on what it calls American hypocrisy. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Beijing "cannot accept any country acting as a world judge or the world's policeman," according to reports by Voice of America.
The position creates an unusual dynamic. When the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023, Washington voiced support. The contrasting response to warrants against an ally has drawn criticism from human rights groups and legal scholars.
"The rules-based international order is crumbling," said speakers at Davos 2026, according to analysis by Modern Diplomacy. The question now is what comes next.
A Fractured Europe
The EU itself is not united. Hungary has withdrawn from ICC cooperation and explicitly stated it would not arrest Netanyahu. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called the warrants "politically motivated."
Germany's position has shifted repeatedly. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel's government pledged ICC support, but opposition leader Friedrich Merz has said he would find a "workaround" if Netanyahu visited. France has claimed that heads of state enjoy immunity, a position legal experts dispute.
According to Euronews, Poland's stance has changed following its change of government, while smaller EU members have shown more consistency in backing ICC jurisdiction.
The divisions expose a deeper problem. Without a unified European voice capable of speaking and acting as one, the EU's influence on such matters depends on the political winds in individual capitals. A federal European foreign policy would eliminate this inconsistency.
The Irony of Convergence
Beijing and Brussels reaching similar conclusions on ICC jurisdiction raises questions about what the "rules-based order" actually means. Both frame their positions in terms of international law. Both criticize American selectivity in applying standards.
Yet their motivations differ sharply. EU member states are legally bound by the Rome Statute. China, which has not ratified it, faces no such obligation. Beijing's support is rhetorical, allowing it to criticize Western hypocrisy while avoiding any commitment to submit its own officials to ICC jurisdiction.
Rights groups have noted this tension. Critics point to China's treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, where the UN Human Rights Office documented serious human rights violations. Beijing has rejected all such accusations.
Human Rights Watch and other organisations have called on the EU to take concrete action in response to international court rulings, arguing that merely affirming ICC jurisdiction is not enough.
What the Convergence Reveals
The EU-China alignment on this issue does not signal any broader rapprochement. The European Commission continues to describe China as a "systemic rival" in its official strategy documents.
What it does reveal is the extent of American isolation on questions of international law. When both Europe and China can agree that ICC warrants should be respected, the outlier is Washington.
The European Council on Foreign Relations has called the ICC warrants "a test for European principles." Whether individual member states pass that test may determine how much credibility the EU has when it speaks about human rights and rule of law elsewhere.
For Europe, the lesson is clear. National governments pursuing their own foreign policies will continue to create contradictions that rivals can exploit. Only a genuine European federation with a unified foreign and security policy can speak with the authority the moment demands.
The current EU structure allows Hungary to undermine collective positions. It permits Germany and France to equivocate while smaller states show more principle. It leaves Europe unable to defend the very international institutions it helped create.
Looking Ahead
The ICC arrest warrants remain in effect. Netanyahu's ability to travel internationally is now constrained, though the practical impact depends on which countries he wishes to visit.
The broader question is whether the international legal order can survive its traditional guardian stepping away. If the United States continues to sanction international courts and their officials, other powers will fill the vacuum.
China has already begun positioning itself as an alternative voice on international law. Whether Beijing's commitment to such principles extends beyond rhetorical convenience remains to be seen. But in a world where Washington sanctions judges and prosecutors, even selective adherence to international law starts to look principled by comparison.
February 3, 2026