As the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran stretches into its third week, a grim reality is settling over the international legal system. Despite reports of over 1,200 civilian deaths in Iran and widespread allegations of strikes on hospitals and schools, the International Criminal Court is unlikely ever to prosecute anyone for alleged war crimes in the conflict.
The obstacle is not evidence or legal principle, but the cold geometry of international law. Neither the United States, Israel nor Iran are members of the court, meaning the court does not have jurisdiction in the ongoing war unless it is referred to ICC prosecutors by a Security Council resolution. That referral path is almost certainly closed. Russia and China, both permanent Security Council members, have shown little appetite for action that would target their geopolitical interests, and the United States itself has demonstrated fierce opposition to ICC jurisdiction over American personnel.
The jurisdictional gap reveals a fundamental flaw in the international accountability system. Iran is not a state party to the Court, so neither the referral of a state party nor the initiation of the investigation by the ICC Prosecutor would apply, and the only possibility would be the referral of the situation by the Security Council. Human rights organisations have urged Iran to file a declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction, following a precedent set by Palestine and Ukraine. Under Article 12(3) of the ICC's Rome Statute, any state, even non-parties to the Statute like Iran, may lodge a declaration with the ICC Registrar accepting the Court's jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory from a specific date, and filing such a declaration is an executive act that Iran can take immediately. Yet even if Iran does so, prosecution of American or Israeli officials would remain constrained by political reality.
The Trump administration has made no secret of its hostility to ICC investigations. Earlier this year, the US imposed sanctions on ICC judges and staff, arguing that the court has exceeded its jurisdiction by investigating American citizens. This pressure has already shaped the court's calculus on investigations into US conduct in Afghanistan and Israeli operations in Gaza.
Iran's Red Crescent has urged the International Criminal Court to examine alleged strikes on civilian sites as possible war crimes. The Red Crescent has documented the killing of over 150 students and teachers in strikes on schools and strikes on hospitals full of newborns. Yet without a Security Council referral or cooperation from the accused states, these allegations are unlikely to become formal prosecutions.
Beyond the courtroom, the conflict has created immediate material pressures for Australia. Australia currently has 36 days of petrol supply, 29 days of jet fuel, and 32 days of diesel left in the tank. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil flows, has disrupted supplies from Asian refineries that Australia depends on for most refined fuel imports. More than 90 percent of refined petroleum products consumed domestically are imported, largely from Asian refineries that themselves rely heavily on Middle Eastern crude.
The government has acted to ease the immediate crunch. Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen announced the government will temporarily lower fuel quality standards for 60 days to allow higher-sulphur fuel to be sold, which will add roughly 100 million litres to the market each month, and up to 762 million litres of petrol and diesel will be released from domestic reserves. Yet the underlying vulnerability is structural. The refined fuel Australia imports must still pass through the narrow maritime channels of Southeast Asia before reaching Australian ports, with roughly 83 percent of maritime imports moving through Indonesian straits.
The dilemma exposes a tension between immediate fiscal and economic concerns on one hand and longer-term institutional health on the other. Accountability for alleged war crimes serves the abstract goal of international justice. Yet fuel security serves concrete needs: transport, agriculture, electricity. When those collide, governments prioritise survival over principle. The absence of prosecution for alleged crimes in Iran will test whether international law retains any meaning when the accused are too powerful to constrain.