Mandy Lender

A Short History of Mock Justice

Is there a royal court of kangaroo?

Nope. There’s no known Royal Court of Kangaroo. I looked it up.

What about the 8^th District Court of Kalamazoo MI?  Yep. There is one. You’ve got to finish reading the serious-minded stuff to find the neighborhood kangaroos.

We once passed by, wandering my wife and me, by the monarchic Peace Palace of the International Court of Justice.  All heavily fenced.  The one in the city of The Hague. Some folks regard it as a variant of a kangaroo court. We’ll discuss later. 

 A “Kangaroo Court” evokes images of swift, arbitrary justice, often dispensed with a wink and a nod outside the bounds of established legal systems. It signifies a sham trial, where the outcome is predetermined, rules are vague, and the accused has little to no chance of a fair hearing.  

The image of a kangaroo, leaping about and dispensing unpredictable “justice,” likely contributed to the name. The unpredictable and seemingly arbitrary nature of kangaroo “justice” mirrors the animal’s erratic jumping movements.

The concept of a kangaroo court is a symbol. It served as a satirical critique of  informal justice systems. On the one hand, it could lampoon the perceived slowness or corruption of established courts, suggesting that even supposedly legitimate processes could be manipulated or biased. On the other hand, more commonly, it targeted extra-legal or vigilante justice.  Thus highlighting, the dangers of bypassing due process in favor of swift, retribution. The kangaroo court,  became a tale about the slippery slope from frustration with the legal system to outright lawlessness.

#        #        #

Pinning down the exact time the phrase entered the lexicon is difficult. Some etymologists suggest a connection to the Australian outback, where informal, makeshift tribunals may have arisen due to the remoteness and lack of established legal infrastructure. Others point to American frontier justice, where similar circumstances could have given rise to impromptu, often biased, proceedings. The frontier settings, whether Australian or American, shared a common characteristic: a perceived absence or inadequacy of formal legal structures, which potentially fostered the creation of these alternative, flawed, juristic systems.

#        #        #

The development of the term’s usage also reflects evolving social concerns. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, “kangaroo court” often appeared in accounts of frontier life, mining camps, and other remote communities.

The term “kangaroo court” originated in early 19th century America, likely stemming from the California Gold Rush era where makeshift courts were set up to deal with “claim jumpers” (miners illegally taking another’s claim), and the phrase was first recorded in print around the 1840s, with one early reference appearing in a book about Texas describing a mock trial with off-duty lawyers.

These contexts frequently involved disputes over land, resources, or personal grievances, where formal legal recourse was limited.

#        #        #

Over time, the term broadened to encompass any situation where a group of individuals took it upon themselves to judge and punish someone outside of established legal channels.

This could include disciplines within schools, workplaces, or even social clubs. In these settings, the kangaroo court might take the form of a mock trial, complete with fabricated charges, predetermined verdicts, and symbolic punishments.

The use of kangaroo courts, however, is far from benign. They can inflict emotional distress, damage reputations, and even incite violence. Historically, kangaroo courts have even been associated with lynchings, racial violence, and other forms of mob rule. In these extreme cases, the kangaroo court serves as a thin veneer of legitimacy for acts of brutality, allowing perpetrators to cloak their actions in faked semblance of order and justice.

In short, the kangaroo court, whether a historical reality or a legal sarcasm, serves as a symbol of the dangers of extra-legal justice. Its evolution reflects changing social contexts and anxieties about the legal system.

While the specific forms and settings may vary, the core principle remains the same: the denial of due process and the arbitrary exercise of power.

#        #        #

Let’s delve into the contentious topic of the International Courts in The Hague and the accusations of being “Kangaroo Courts.”  I’ll break this down examining the courts, the accusations, national positions, and the source of  authority.

When we ask if the International Courts in The Hague are ever considered Kangaroo Courts, we’re asking if credible voices, particularly states and legal scholars, have raised concerns that these courts exhibit some or all these characteristics.

By the “International Courts” in The Hague, we refer to:

1. The International Court of Justice (ICJ): This is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It settles disputes between states. It’s based on the Statute of the International Court of Justice, annexed to the UN Charter.
2. The International Criminal Court (ICC): This court prosecutes individuals for serious international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. It’s based on the Rome Statute.
3. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA): Despite its name, it’s not a court in the same way as the ICJ or ICC. It’s an arbitral institution that facilitates arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution between states, state entities, international organizations, and private parties. It’s based on conventions of 1899 and 1907.

While they are based in The Hague and deal with international law, they are distinct entities with different jurisdictions and functions.

#        #        #

Have They Ever Been Considered Kangaroo Courts?

Yes.  But…

The accusation of being “Kangaroo Courts” was leveled against these international courts, particularly against the International Criminal Court (ICC) more so than the ICJ or PCA, though criticisms exist across the board.

It’s important to understand who makes this accusation, why, and if it’s a fair assessment or a politically motivated rhetorical tactic.

Arguments Used to Suggest “Kangaroo Court” Concerns:

• Politicization and Selective Justice (Especially against the ICC):
  • Focus on Africa: Early cases of the ICC predominantly involved African situations. This led to accusations of bias, with some African leaders and states arguing the ICC was unfairly targeting Africa while ignoring potential crimes in powerful Western nations or their allies. This fuels the perception of selective justice, a hallmark of a kangaroo court.
  • Influence of Powerful States: Critics argue that the ICC, and international law more broadly, can be influenced by powerful European states and their political agendas. This can lead to concerns that prosecutions are politically motivated rather than purely legally sound.
  • Lack of Enforcement Power: The ICC relies on state cooperation for arrests and enforcement. This weakness, especially against powerful states or individuals, can lead to accusations that it can only go after weaker actors, making it seem less like a genuine court of justice and more like a tool for certain political goals.
• Sovereignty Concerns and Consent (More broadly for ICJ and ICC):
  • States’ Consent to Jurisdiction: International law, in theory, is based on state consent. However, the ICC and sometimes the ICJ can be seen as impinging on state sovereignty. States that have not ratified the Rome Statute (like the U.S., China, Russia for the ICC) often argue that the ICC’s jurisdiction over their nationals or territories is illegitimate without their consent, mirroring the lack of legitimate authority in a Kangaroo Court. Similarly, for the ICJ, while states can consent to its jurisdiction, they are not obliged to in many cases.
  • Perceived Overreach: Some states view the pronouncements of these courts as overreaching, especially when they conflict with domestic legal systems or national interests. This perception of overreach can contribute to the “Kangaroo Court” accusation, suggesting the court is acting beyond its legitimate bounds.
• Lack of Representation/Cultural Bias (Less Directly “Kangaroo Court” but related to legitimacy):
  • Some critics argue that international legal institutions, including these courts, are heavily influenced by Western legal traditions and values, and less representative of the diversity of global legal cultures. This can lead to a perception of bias, not necessarily in the procedural sense of a Kangaroo Court, but in the substantive values and norms being applied.

#        #        #

A Recent Close to Home Example.

On June 11, 2020, it was a show of force in the U.S. State Department’s briefing room. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Attorney General William Barr and national security adviser Robert O’Brien joined Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in blasting the International Criminal Court. Pompeo accused the court of an ideological crusade against Americans who served in Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said: “We cannot, and we will not stand by as our people are threatened by a kangaroo court.  And indeed, I have a message to many close allies around the world – your people could be next, especially those from NATO countries who fought terrorism in Afghanistan right alongside of us.”

Other powers – Russia, China, hold the similar positions.  It’s essential to differentiate their positions on jurisdiction versus the “Kangaroo Court” label specifically, although they are often intertwined.

• United States:
  • ICJ: The U.S. has generally accepted the ICJ’s jurisdiction for state-to-state disputes, but there have been instances where the U.S. has been critical and even defied ICJ rulings (e.g., Nicaragua v. United States). The U.S. withdrew from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986.  The U.S. position is one of selective engagement, accepting the ICJ when it aligns with U.S. interests but reserving the right to reject jurisdiction in other cases. While the U.S. may be critical of specific ICJ rulings, it doesn’t generally label the ICJ as a “Kangaroo Court” in the broad sense.
  • ICC: The U.S. is not a party to the Rome Statute and has been consistently hostile to the ICC’s jurisdiction, especially over U.S. nationals. The U.S. has taken measures to undermine the ICC, including sanctions against ICC officials. U.S. rhetoric sometimes echoes “Kangaroo Court” sentiments, emphasizing concerns about sovereignty, politically motivated prosecutions, and lack of due process for U.S. citizens.
  • U.S. President Trump signed an executive order on February 6, 2025, imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court and pledging “tangible and significant consequences” for those responsible for investigations that threatened the national security of the United States and its allies, including Israel.
  • PCA: The U.S. is a contracting party to the PCA’s founding conventions and has used PCA arbitration in various disputes. The U.S. generally views international arbitration, including through the PCA, more favorably than the ICC or compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, as it is based on consent and party autonomy. “Kangaroo Court” accusations are less likely here because of the consensual nature of arbitration.
• China:
  • ICJ: China is a member of the UN and generally recognizes the ICJ’s role within the UN system. However, China has been very cautious about accepting ICJ jurisdiction in disputes concerning its core interests, especially territorial disputes. China has not explicitly labeled the ICJ as a “Kangaroo Court,” but its emphasis on state sovereignty and non-interference suggests a wariness of international judicial overreach.
  • ICC: China is not a party to the Rome Statute and has consistently expressed reservations about the ICC, primarily based on sovereignty concerns. China emphasizes that national jurisdictions should have primacy in prosecuting crimes, and the ICC should only be a court of last resort. Like the U.S., China is unlikely to use the specific term “Kangaroo Court” officially, but its stance reflects similar concerns about sovereignty.
  • PCA: China is a contracting party to the PCA conventions and has participated in PCA arbitration, particularly in commercial disputes. However, in the high-profile South China Sea Arbitration case initiated by the Philippines at the PCA, China rejected the PCA’s jurisdiction and refused to participate. While not labeling the PCA a “Kangaroo Court,” China’s rejection demonstrated a strong assertion of sovereignty and a selective approach to international dispute resolution, even in arbitration.
• Russia:
  • ICJ: Russia, as a successor to the Soviet Union, is a member of the UN and generally recognizes the ICJ’s role in principle. However, Russia has become increasingly critical of international courts, especially in the context of geopolitical tensions with the West. Russia has been unwilling to submit to ICJ jurisdiction in cases it deems politically sensitive or related to its core security interests. While not always explicitly using “Kangaroo Court,” Russian rhetoric often portrays international courts as biased, politicized, and tools of Western powers.
  • ICC: Russia initially signed the Rome Statute but withdrew its signature in 2016. Russia strongly rejects the ICC’s jurisdiction, particularly after the ICC investigated situations related to Georgia and Ukraine (areas of Russian interest). Russian officials and state media frequently use language that strongly implies “Kangaroo Court” accusations, portraying the ICC as biased, anti-Russian, and lacking legitimacy, often explicitly stating it’s a political tool rather than a genuine court of justice.
  • PCA: Russia is a contracting party to the PCA conventions. However, in recent years, particularly after the annexation of Crimea and increased tensions with the West, Russia has become more skeptical of international arbitration and less willing to engage in international legal processes it perceives as biased or against its interests. While less prominent than criticisms of the ICJ and ICC, a similar thread of skepticism about the fairness and impartiality of international dispute resolution mechanisms is present in Russian discourse.

Wherefrom These International Courts Assume Their Authority?

Their authority comes from several sources:

• Treaties and Statutes: The foundational documents of each court (Statute of the ICJ, Rome Statute of the ICC, PCA Conventions) are international treaties. These derive authority from the consent of states that become parties to them (treaty law).
• UN Charter (for ICJ): The ICJ’s Statute is annexed to the UN Charter, giving it a particularly strong basis as the principal judicial organ of the UN, which itself has near-universal membership.
• Customary International Law: Some aspects of international law and procedure applied by these courts are also considered part of customary international law, which arises from the general practice of states accepted as law, even without explicit treaty consent.
• Accepted Role in International Order: Over time, these courts have gained a degree of legitimacy and acceptance within the international system (though this is constantly contested and not universal). Their authority also stems from the expectation that states should resolve disputes peacefully and according to international law, and these courts provide mechanisms for doing so.

Aren’t They Kangaroo Courts? It depends on whom you ask. Thus, the Answer is nuanced.  No, they are not inherently or universally kangaroo courts in the strict sense of definition above.

• Effort to Uphold Due Process: These courts do have some rules of procedure, evidence, and judicial processes intended to ensure fairness. They employ judges but their impartiality is often debated, and aims to operate based on law and evidence, not just political diktat.
• Legal Basis: Their authority is rooted in international legal instruments and principles, not purely arbitrary power.

YET, the accusation of being “Kangaroo Courts” has basis in reality, perception and critique, especially when considering the ICC and the ICJ.

• Perception of Bias and Selective Justice is Real: The concerns about the ICC focusing disproportionately on Africa, the influence of powerful states, and perceived weaknesses in enforcement contribute to the perception of bias and selectivity, which are hallmarks of Kangaroo Courts.
• Political Context Matters: International law and these courts operate in a deeply political world. Accusations of “Kangaroo Court” are often deployed strategically by states to resist jurisdiction or discredit rulings they dislike. However, even if politically motivated, these accusations can point to genuine concerns about fairness, bias, and the limits of international justice.
• Ongoing Debate about Legitimacy: The legitimacy of international courts is constantly debated. The fact that powerful states like the U.S., China, and Russia are often skeptical or outright hostile to certain aspects of their jurisdiction highlights the ongoing challenges these courts face in achieving universal acceptance and escaping accusations of bias or political influence.

#        #        #

Philological Notes and Metaphorical Images.

The etymologist Philologos suggests that the term arose “because a place named Kangaroo sounded comical to its hearers, just as place names like Kalamazoo, and Okeefenokee Swamp, strike us as comical.”  

In 19th century America, an alternative term was “Mustang Court”, after mustang horses that roamed the Texas plains, thus evoking the image of a court presided over by a wild beast.

Did you know?  Binder Park Zoo in Kalamazoo, Michigan, hosts red kangaroos. The zoo also has other Australian animals, including red-necked wallabies, common wall Aroos, and laughing kookaburras.  There is the Michigan 8th District Court seat in Kalamazoo, MI.  What a serendipitous coincidence.

#        #        #

My Take Home Message:

The International Courts in The Hague are contested and criticized by states and legal institutions to be operating in a highly political international environment.

The accusation of “Kangaroo Court” is strong and polemical. It does reflect valid concerns about perceptions of bias, selective justice, and the influence of power dynamics within the international legal system. Whether they are perceived as legitimate and fair depends on one’s perspective, national interests, and political viewpoint.  Kangaroo or not – as of this writing, today, here in the U.S., working with the ICC is practically illegal.

Artwork by Will Bullas.

www.mandylender.com  www.mandylender.net  www.attractome.com 

Tags: #kangaroocourt #internationalcourtofjustice #internationalcriminalcourt  #mustangcourt #thehague #mikepompeo #markesper #williambarr #WillBullas