Should political leaders who have promoted or tolerated mass killings be brought to justice? Many in the west would instinctively answer Yes. The idea that leaders can kill their way to power – and not face punishment – seems morally wrong and politically dangerous. In recent years, an apparatus of international justice has been set up to ensure that mass murder can no longer go unpunished – with the I nternational Criminal Court at its apex.

Next month, Uhuru Kenyatta, the president of Kenya, is due to go on trial at the ICC in The Hague for his alleged role in masterminding post-electoral violence in 2007-08, which led to more than 1000 deaths. The trial of William Ruto, Kenya’s vice-president, on similar charges, has already begun. In theory, the cases against Kenya’s leaders mark an important step forwards in the new international doctrine that human rights violations will be punished – no matter how powerful the perpetrators. In reality, there is a real risk that the Kenyatta trial will be the high water mark for the ICC and the ideas that it represents.

Until recently, most liberal thinkers assumed that the ICC, and the doctrine stating that the international community has a “responsibility to protect” civilians, were the modest beginnings of a new international order. The idea was that it would become harder and harder to be a traditional cruel dictator. The only people who would defend the old Westphalian system of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations would be backward-looking baddies in Beijing and Moscow.