Law, Power, and Language: A Comparative Study of Western Responses to the ICC’s Netanyahu-Gallant Warrants

Abstract

This study investigates the contrasting responses of the United States and the European Union to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants against Israeli officials Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. It critically analyzes how legal, political, and strategic considerations shape the discourse of each actor, particularly in relation to international justice mechanisms. Employing a hybrid discourse analysis framework, the research integrates Ruth Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and Teun van Dijk’s Sociocognitive Approach. This interdisciplinary methodology facilitates a nuanced examination of the ideological, historical, and power-laden dimensions of political discourse. The data, drawn from official U.S. and EU statements and media reports (primarily Reuters and YouTube sources), is analyzed to uncover referential strategies, argumentation, perspectivation, framing, mitigation, ideology and power, discourse construction and historical Contextualization. Findings indicate a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy: from upholding the language of law to prioritizing the language of power, rooted in national and strategic interests. This is exemplified by the U.S.’s rejection of the ICC’s warrants, despite grave allegations of genocide in Gaza. In contrast, the EU maintains a consistent commitment to international law and multilateralism, reinforcing its role as a normative power within the global order. The study argues that these divergent responses signal a deeper geopolitical rupture within the Western alliance. This divide reflects the erosion of the post-WWII international system and suggests a transition toward a multipolar world where regional powers such as the EU, China, and Russia increasingly assert influence over global governance. Drawing on Gramsci’s insights on transitional epochs, the research concludes that the growing tensions between power and law may define the contours of a new and uncertain era for international justice.