INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

THE arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister Yoav Gallant, represent a historic milestone in the fight for accountability over war crimes.

For Israel’s leadership, the ICC’s action ends decades of perceived impunity and challenges what critics describe as Israel’s longstanding “shield of immunity”. There were predictable reactions: Netanyahu condemned the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic”, while others praised the warrants against Israel’s leaders as an “important historical precedent”. The ICC’s jurisdiction over Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem provides the legal foundation for this bold move. However, the real test of these warrants lies with the ICC’s 124 member states, which are legally obliged to arrest the accused and transfer them to The Hague. Failure to act would expose international law as a façade, undermining its ability and allowing powerful nations and their allies to trample justice with impunity. Enforcing these warrants is not just a legal obligation – it is a moral imperative to uphold the principle that no leader is above the law.

This mandate demands both individual accountability and state responsibility, prohibiting governments from aiding or enabling war crimes. The UK government faces criticism for its support of Israel, which campaigners argue has long contravened international law. Many European nations that championed ICC action against Russia’s Vladimir Putin must now confront their obligations toward Israel. Failing to enforce the warrants risks betraying commitments and eroding trust in multilateral justice. The consistency of their responses will test their commitment to international law.

Like Israel, the United States does not recognise the ICC’s authority. Washington’s longstanding rejection of ICC jurisdiction, coupled with threats of sanctions against cooperating states sends a troubling message: that international law applies only to weaker nations, not to global powers or their allies. Such resistance weakens the global justice system and calls into question the principles the US claims to uphold. The crimes at the centre of those warrants are among the gravest violations of international humanitarian law, including starvation as a weapon of war and deliberate attacks on civilians. When such acts are systematic and state-driven, they demand accountability. The ICC’s pursuit of justice tests the international community’s resolve to uphold these norms in the face of political resistance.

This moment represents more than a legal proceeding; it is a fundamental challenge to the international order. The ICC’s actions signal that even the most powerful nations must answer for breaches of humanitarian law. If member states fail to act, they risk rendering international law meaningless. The choice is clear: uphold the principles of justice and law or accept a world where power determines impunity. By endorsing the court’s decision, rogue states will begin to fear being brought to book. Upholding these principles is essential to a just international order where the law protects all, not just the strong. A powerful message is contained in the ICC warrants: that the era of unchecked impunity for war crimes must end.

A special responsibility falls to Britain, which helped to create the ICC when Labour’s Robin Cook was foreign secretary. It was an important and valuable achievement that should not now be undermined. Keir Starmer must make it absolutely, unambiguously clear that if Netanyahu or Gallant steps foot on UK territory, they will be arrested and handed over to the court to face trial. It’s not politics, and neither is it personal. It’s justice.