Any quest to bring perpetrators of horrendous atrocities such as murder, rape and torture to justice is one that ought to have the universal backing of countries around the world. But unfortunately, efforts to bring those who waged or ordered such crimes in Darfur to account have been undermined by the fact that justice is perceived as being selectively applied. Many have argued that the International Criminal Court's (ICC) decision to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is evidence that the international body is applying double standards. The criticisms are all the more easy to level against the ICC because the court issued its arrest warrant on Wednesday not on the basis of genocide, but for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The definitions of these two crimes are broad enough that observers can easily point to other world leaders and culprits who should have also been caught in the ICC's crosshairs. The precedent can be extended, for example, to former US President George W. Bush, who authorized torture in Iraq's Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, thereby giving his approval to American crimes against humanity. Washington's ally Israel could also be a potential candidate for prosecution, in view of the fact that it recently slaughtered innocents, denied civilians an exit from a conflict zone and reportedly forced Palestinian hostages to carry out military duties during its war on Gaza. But the leaders of these two closely allied nations are not likely to ever stand trial, given the fact that the Security Council, on which the US is a permanent veto-wielding member, can thwart any such effort.

For similar reasons, ICC cases are not likely to ever emerge from places like Chechnya or Georgia. Other criminals who have managed to stay off the ICC's radar include leaders or warlords in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Congo. With such an uneven-handed application of justice, it will be hard for the ICC to win global support.

The answer to this criticism, however, is not to limit the pursuit of justice, but to expand it, so that the rule of law applies to leaders and individuals around the globe. Perhaps the ICC can win more support from its current critics if and when Bush stands trial.