the problem is it doesnt. 44 of the 44 people indicted by the International Criminal Court have been African. Absent an indictment of someone from US, UK, Israel––or literally ANYwhere else but Africa––the only signal being sent is that international law only applies to Africans. 
the ICC's complete inability or unwillingness to indict non-Africans has created a legitimacy problem and they can't just scold their way out of it. newsweek.com/gambia-pull-ou…
“As already indicated by the Office in 2006, the 'decision by the UK to go to war in Iraq falls outside the [ICC]'s jurisdiction’.” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
amazing how that turned out.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/0…
amazing how that turned out.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/0…
I asked this question in 2016 when it was 39 out of 39. Not it's 44 out of 44. At what point does the ICC's Africans-only streak become an existential problem? 100 of 100? 5,000 of 5,000? And if it's only going to de facto be for Africans they should, at some point, just say so.
