The International Criminal Court (ICC) has recently been giving some long overdue attention to Israeli war crimes in the Palestinian territories, British war crimes in Iraq, and lately, U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan.

"Members of US armed forces appear to have subjected at least 61 detained persons to torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity on the territory of Afghanistan between 1 May 2003 and 31 December 2014," says the report issued on Monday by Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.
The report added that CIA operatives may have subjected at least 27 detainees in Afghanistan, Poland, Romania and Lithuania to "torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and/or rape" between December 2002 and March 2008.

These are all bold, dramatic moves, that look all the more bold and dramatic in relation to the previous history of the ICC.

Since the inception of the International Criminal Court more than a decade ago, only Africans have been brought to trial.

That little fact displays a bias against the least powerful that it too hard to ignore.
This is supposed to be the International Criminal Court, not the African Criminal Court.
This hypocrisy has a price.

Three nations, all from Africa, have announced that they will no longer work with the tribunal, intensifying a longstanding debate over whether it is biased against the continent.
This week, Gambia, known for crushing political dissent, announced its intention to pull out of the tribunal, denouncing it on state television as the “international Caucasian court.” Though most of the court’s judges are not white, almost all of its full-fledged investigations have focused on Africa. And the planned withdrawal carried an extra barb: Gambia is the home country of the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda.
Before that, Burundi announced its plans to withdraw, months after Ms. Bensouda announced that she would open a preliminary examination into the killings of antigovernment protesters there.
But most damaging for the court, one of its early champions, South Africa, announced last week that it would leave, too, saying that the court’s writ was “incompatible” with its ability to resolve political conflicts in its neighborhood.

Obviously the ICC is belatedly doing what it should have been doing all along. Possibly too late.
Of course the ICC isn't totally to blame. It has a serious flaw built in.

But many of the world’s major powers — including China, Russia and the United States — did not join, which means their citizens are not subject to its jurisdiction without the Security Council’s approval. And these world powers have vetoes on the council, so they can shield themselves and their allies if they are accused of war crimes.
Of the court’s 124 members, 34 are in Africa. Most European and Latin American countries also joined. (El Salvador was the latest.) Most Arab nations, with the exception of Jordan, did not.

Despite it's serious flaw, I still hope that something can be done to save it.

Yet despite its shortcomings, like many others Ms Madonsela is sceptical about wholesale withdrawal.
"Better to have an imperfect court than none at all. It's like saying because we don't catch all the criminals we shouldn't hold trials."
Nevertheless there is widespread expectation that other countries may soon leave.