THe has issued an arrest warrant. by the International Criminal Court, which prosecuted Israel’s prime minister and former defense minister; They represent many important historical figures. They would mark the court’s first prosecution of a leader in a liberal Western democracy. And it’s the first time anyone has been charged. “The crime of starvation”; It was the first time a court accused a country of committing war crimes during a war of self-defense against a foreign aggressor. and the first proceedings against a non-member state based on a member’s will, which is generally not recognized as a state.
For all these legal innovations The warrant also represents something entirely familiar: an international institution created to serve a noble, noble purpose. By succumbing to the temptation to pursue an anti-Israel agenda. This phenomenon is regularly expressed at the General Assembly and the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Such allegations are baseless in terms of law and fact. issued by a court without jurisdiction Accusing it of a crime, something that never happened. At the same time, it ignores settled international laws and practices. But before resorting to an Israeli arrest warrant We need to understand what the ICC really is.
ICC, which sits in The Hague Netherlands It was created in 1998 by a treaty called the Rome Statute. To provide a platform where perpetrators of the world’s worst atrocities may be prosecuted. It was a kind of permanent Nuremberg tribunal. The new court will not affect national sovereignty. This is because it will have jurisdiction only over countries that voluntarily participate. In the decade of optimism between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, some hoped that the court would lead to “End impunity” for large-scale atrocities such as the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda. and lead to a “rules-based international order”
That dream has never seemed more distant. Four centuries later The majority of the world’s population lives in countries that have never joined the court. This includes the United States and China. India and Pakistan and almost throughout the Middle East Many of the countries joining the ICC face little prospect of engaging in armed conflict. For them, membership carries little risk. And it’s just a feel-good ritual.
Despite an annual budget of about $200 million, the court has convicted only six people for the atrocities it was created to handle. Many high-profile cases have collapsed. Accusations against incumbent dictators such as Vladimir Putin of Russia get laughed at Kenya’s current and former presidents have sued the ICC to get them re-elected. (The case against them was dismissed because of what the ICC’s presiding judge described as The two countries have left the court together. It shakes belief in the inevitable, gradual expansion of the Hague order.
The composition of the ICC’s membership has created serious problems for the court. The largest concentration of member states is in Africa. But all of the defendants tried by the court were sub-Saharan Africans. This led to mass strikes by states in the African Union.
The accusations against Israel can be understood in part as a way to remedy this situation. They serve to deflect criticism of the court as a tool of the West. and has been enthusiastically welcomed by international NGOs. And it comes with a key advantage: as a non-member state. Israel cannot resign in protest.
But that would mean that the court should not have jurisdiction over Israel as a matter of right. To overcome this obstacle The court ruled that Palestine was a state that could join the court. This is despite not meeting the legal criteria for statehood. Such exceptions have not been made by any other entity, which has also controversially ruled that the Gaza Strip is part of that state. Beyond the West Bank This is despite the fact that each has had completely different governments for nearly two decades.
The ICC then ignored the second restriction on access. Applicable law requires the state to intervene only when the state They are “unwilling or unable” to prosecute criminal leaders. to protect them from liability Israel’s Attorney General was not only willing to prosecute Prime Minister Benjamin. Only Netanyahu But he has also done so in several high-profile cases involving corruption allegations.
A more likely reason that the Israeli justice system does not prosecute the charges brought by the ICC is because they appear to be baseless. The main points of the court’s claims (A detail that remains sealed in court) is that Israel is deliberately starving Gaza residents. as well as limiting electricity use in the area. However, in June The United Nations hunger watchdog has issued a report denying that famine occurred during the period. Mentioned by prosecutors– and Israel’s permission to ship food into Gaza This is estimated to provide more than 3,000 calories per day per person. It is not recommended to attempt to starve the population. This is despite conditions in some parts of the Gaza Strip being dire.
Hamas controls the distribution of food within the Gaza Strip and does so. arrest aid convoy Help group complain Israel has restricted the flow of food into Gaza. Israeli counter aid is piled up on the Gaza side of the border without distribution, and international law allows blockades of enemy forces. Even if civilians are within the besieged area. Exceptions allow for the provision of essential medical supplies. But even those exceptions are suppressed when there is a plausible fear of “deviation” to enemy forces. As Hamas certainly has. If something happens Israel is being blamed for causing Hama to starve its own people.
ICC supporters should be embarrassed that Hamas and Hezbollah supported their decision. These groups understand that court complaints against Israeli officials will make it more difficult for Israel to defend itself. However, the ICC cannot deter dictators and warlords. Because they can fall into their own hands only when they lose power. If they remain in power despite the brutality Their little itinerary is more than made up for by the power and wealth they will enjoy. All three Hamas leaders indicted have been killed by Israel. They might need a jail cell in The Hague.
Democratic leaders must make a different calculation. They rotate out of power. And their personal interests at work are relatively small. The ICC’s arrest warrant against them, while completely unfair, It can prevent them from prosecuting a vigorous and legitimate defense war. For which their civilian population will pay the price, therefore, prosecution of Israeli officials will make war crimes more likely. By giving it a degree of opposition to liberal democracy.
All of this poses a threat to the United States. As a non-member state engaging in high-level armed conflicts on a global scale Like leaders and soldiers, the ICC can recognize the Islamic State in the Levant as a “state” for the purposes of its jurisdiction. Just as Palestine is easily accepted. and investigating American officials for crimes committed during the U.S.-led campaign against terrorist groups. The campaign began during Barack Obama’s presidency, including the fighting in Mosul. Efforts to expel the city’s estimated 5,000 ISIS fighters could lead to 10,000 civilians Death and Fall of a City The ICC has no jurisdiction. Because Iraq did not join the treaty. But the Palestinian example shows that this is not an insurmountable problem.
ICC lawlessness also threatens American troops in counterterrorism missions in ICC-joining countries. Washington has long relied on treaties it signed with countries to protect the Hague’s jurisdiction. But the court’s laissez-faire view of its authority does not guarantee that those treaties will be honored.
This is not far-fetched: the ICC is investigating alleged U.S. crimes. In Afghanistan, in fact, ICC prosecutors recently pointed out This states that a sitting member of the United States Senate may have committed a crime against the court’s charter. They spoke out in support of bipartisan legislation that would impose sanctions on the body.
All attempts to solve the world’s problems are ineffective. But some things backfire. The court’s founding ambition should not shield it from the consequences of its decision to pursue another agenda.
