Tag Archives: International criminal court

Britain, Government, ICC, Israel, Legal, Politics, Society

War crimes demand accountability

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.

Standard
Government, Legal, Society, United Nations

Support for the International Criminal Court is dwindling

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

icc

Established in 2002 the International Criminal Court has existed for pursuing individuals suspected of having committed serious war crimes. But, now, support for its authority is dwindling.

Intro: Born of a noble ideal, the ICC would appear to be facing serious difficulties

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002. This became the first permanent institution to bring to book the genocidal warlords who would have previously evaded justice. Its creation was heralded as a bastion for those seeking redress for the most heinous of crimes against humanity.

From the outset, however, the ICC was beset with difficulties. Principle among them has been the refusal of many countries, including the United States and China, to recognise its legitimacy and jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, more than 120 states did sign up; and to date the ICC has issued 39 indictments and concluded proceedings against 17 individuals, of whom three have been convicted. Preliminary investigations are taking place over 10 other conflict situations.

Within the last few days Russia has withdrawn its support for the Rome Treaty that underpins the court’s writ. It has done so in protest at an investigation into alleged atrocities it is said to have committed in Georgia. Moscow’s move follows recent decisions by South Africa, Gambia and Burundi to pull out accusing the court of bias and prejudice in Africa. Russia’s decision could prove to be the high watermark for the ICC as its authority erodes and declines further. Born of a noble ideal, the ICC would appear to be facing serious difficulties. But equally, with Russia cranking up for further military action in Syria, its action cannot be an excuse to carry out war crimes there.

With support for the ICC crumbling, the rationale for pursuing British soldiers for spurious allegations of abuse committed in Iraq is also diminishing. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) was set up ostensibly to avoid an investigation by the ICC, which would step in only if there were clear evidence of systemic abuse. This has not materialised. Hunting war criminals for the barbarity they have left in their wake is one thing; pursuing soldiers for carrying out their duty based on unfounded and malicious allegations is quite another.

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, Military, Society

Iraq war crimes denied by the British Government….

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Earlier this month, the human rights lawyers PIL (Public Interest Lawyers) lodged an application with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, said to represent more than 400 Iraqis who have called for an investigation into alleged war crimes carried out by the British Army. The application lodged with the ICC has been made under Article 15 of the Rome Statute.

The legal dossier poses serious implications well above those allegations embedded within the document. For example, it seeks to know whether leading figures in the army and UK government should be called to account.

The submission to the ICC refers to ‘thousands of allegations of mistreatment amounting to war crimes of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’. The dossier also alleges that some ‘at the highest levels’ were mostly responsible, including head of the army General Sir Peter Wall and ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon.

Following the lodging of the document with the court Foreign Secretary William Hague was quick in responding with a firm statement that the allegations are either already under investigation or have been dealt with in previous government inquiries and rulings. Mr Hague insists that any bid to prosecute British politicians and senior military figures for alleged war crimes in Iraq should be rejected. The speed with which Mr Hague reacted and contested the claims is perhaps reflective over concerns the UK government has over the potential damage to Britain’s reputation.

Some 11 years on, the political sensitivity of the UK’s involvement makes the prospect of an international criminal court inquiry highly explosive. The government’s defence is that intensive inquiries have already been held at UK level. It says that some cases of abuse have been acknowledged with appropriate levels of compensation paid and apologies offered. An interim report on an extensive inquiry by Sir Peter Gibson was published last month. Rejecting the allegations of systematic abuses the Foreign Secretary said that the British armed forces ‘uphold high standards and they are the finest armed forces in the world’.

Related:

Yet, there are two problems here for the government. The first is the increasing importance accorded to human rights in international relations. While such investigations into military operations in theatres of war have been questioned on the premise that they would underestimate the intense dangers and pressures which troops were operating under, concerns over human rights abuses has grown. The UK is a signatory to international human rights conventions.

The second problem is that there is a long history of domestic inquiries into the conduct of military operations that were subsequently found to have been inadequately deficient or incomplete. Any external investigation by an international court would spark concern within the Ministry of Defence, which has presided over numerous errors and shortcomings.

What is more, a failure to enforce compliance with the rules of war would be a grave allegation for the MoD to face. But unless such compliance is enforced from the top down with the level of robustness needed, such charges are only likely to be repeated.

Standard