Israeli war criminals: can the ICC lock them up?
The ICC’s bold pursuit of arrest warrants for
western-allied Israeli leaders could redefine international justice. Even if
Netanyahu and Co aren’t tossed behind bars, ‘their world will suddenly become a
lot smaller.’
JUN 21, 2024
https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-war-criminals-can-the-icc-lock-them-up
The International Criminal Court (ICC)
prosecutor’s announcement on 20 May of arrest warrants for five Israeli and Hamas leaders immediately
triggered a torrent of comments and opinions worldwide.
The legal initiative represents an unprecedented
milestone in international relations, marking the first time leaders of a
western-allied state have been accused of war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
According to ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, there
are reasonable arguments that Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav
Gallant are criminally responsible for starvation, murder, intentional
attacks against civilians, extermination, and persecution, among other crimes.
As Khan explained it:
[These crimes] were committed as part of a widespread
and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to
state policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.
Khan has also requested arrest warrants for Yahya
Sinwar, Hamas’ leader in Gaza, Mohammed Deif, leader of Hamas’ military wing,
and Ismail Haniyeh, the group’s political leader.
Main effects of ICC sanctions
The ICC, established in 2002 as the permanent court of
last resort to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity,
genocide, and the crime of aggression, comprises 124 state parties. However, the court relies on its member states’
cooperation for enforcement, a collaboration not forthcoming from influential
states such as the US, Russia, China, and Israel that do not recognize the
court’s jurisdiction.
Issuing arrest warrants for top Israeli leaders is,
therefore, likely to involve an unprecedented degree of political and
logistical complexity – with many obstacles erected by Tel Aviv’s western
allies.
Speaking to The Cradle, Boston
University School of Law’s International Human Rights Clinic Director Susan
Akram points out that the ICC prosecutor must first address numerous legal
questions to provide supporting evidence to the pre-trial judges. The timeline
for their deliberations and decisions on the warrant requests remain uncertain.
Kenneth Roth, former executive
director of Human Rights Watch and visiting professor at Princeton’s School of
Public and International Affairs, highlights the main effect of the ICC arrest
warrants, should they be issued as requested. Netanyahu and
Gallant would be unable to travel to any of the 124 ICC member states, as they
risk arrest and surrender to The Hague for trial.
“Their world will suddenly
become a lot smaller,” he tells The Cradle, adding that he hopes
“governments think twice about sending them more arms, given that they will
have been formally accused of using them to commit war crimes and will
presumably try to avoid answering these charges in court.”
Gentian Zyberi, professor of
international law and human rights at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights,
University of Oslo, notes that the ICC could impose other sanctions, such as
seizing funds and property abroad to use as reparations to victims.
“The most important political
consequence would be to their legitimacy as political leaders once the ICC
confirms the charges,” he warns.
Realistically, though, some
states may refuse to surrender Netanyahu, citing his status as head of
government and thus immunity while in their territory, argues Professor John
Quigley from Ohio State University. Though the ICC does not honor this immunity
itself, international law has not conclusively resolved the matter. He adds:
As for a penalty, there would
be no question of any penalty before a conviction. The typical penalty is
imprisonment. A fine can also be imposed. If the person had assets in a state
party to the Rome Statute, it could be asked by the ICC to seize them.
ICC under threat from the US
and Israel
The potential issuance of
these warrants has prompted mixed reactions globally.
While several EU states, including France, Belgium, Slovenia, Ireland, and
Spain, have responded positively, the US and Israel have predictably responded
furiously.
US President Joe Biden,
for example, expressed outrage over the court jointly seeking warrants for both
Israel and Hamas leaders that accuse them of similar crimes: “Whatever this
prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and
Hamas.” Biden also denied outright the existence of a genocide in Gaza: “What’s
happening is not genocide. We reject that,” he said during a speech at the
White House.
In turn, US Secretary of State
Anthony Blinken said the court has no jurisdiction over Israel’s action into
question the “legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.” But the ICC
pre-trial chamber has already rejected that argument, based on the UN General
Assembly’s overwhelming vote granting Palestine the status of a “non-member
observer state.
Washington further claims that
the ICC prosecutor should have deferred to Israeli self-investigations under
what is known as the principle of complementarity. But Roth fully debunks the
notion that Israel is capable of investigating itself objectively over war
crimes: “Israel has announced 70 investigations but none into the starvation
strategy that is at the heart of the ICC’s current case.”
Moreover, Roth points out that
“Israel has no history of prosecuting senior officials for war crimes” and is
unlikely to do so anytime soon, based on Netanyahu’s contemptuous response to
the ICC request in which he labeled Khan an “antisemite.”
Sanctioning justice
In the meantime, the US House
of Representatives passed legislation to sanction
the court for seeking arrest warrants for senior Israeli leaders,
which now awaits its approval in the US Senate. The legislation seeks to
sanction individuals who have “directly engaged in or otherwise aided” the ICC
in prosecuting Americans or citizens of US allies that do not recognize the
ICC, including Israel.
Washington’s primary interest
in restricting the ICC’s reach is concern that the court might turn its
attention and legal clout toward American troops and officials engaged in
unlawful military aggressions and operations across the globe.
This is not the first time
Washington and Tel Aviv have threatened the ICC and the Special Prosecutor’s
Office. Professor Akram recalls that former President Donald Trump issued
an executive order freezing the US accounts of former special prosecutor Fatou
Bensouda and her staff members and denying them visas to enter the US
to report to United Nations HQ in New York.
A recent investigative report
in the Guardian has
revealed that Israel ran a campaign of harassment and threats against
Bensouda and her family for 10 years, in which its intelligence
agencies were deployed “to surveil, hack, pressure, smear and
allegedly threaten senior ICC staff in an effort to derail the court’s
inquiries.”
But, as Zyberi argues,
sanctioning the ICC or its staff for investigating the Palestine situation
violates the ICC Statute, interfering with justice administration, and thus –
itself – warrants sanctions under Article 70.
Quigley contends that
Washington’s reaction signals a disregard for the rule of law: it supports the
ICC against adversaries but denounces it when allies are targeted. This duality
was underscored by Prosecutor Khan in an interview with CNN when
he revealed an astonishing admission by a senior leader: “This court [the
ICC] is built for Africa and for thugs like Putin.”
For Akram, the ICC’s
past focus on African and Balkan perpetrators effectively ignores the
crimes of western powers, for example, by the US and the UK in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The case against Netanyahu and Gallant, she believes, tests the
court’s credibility today - while Roth sees the potential warrants as proof
that even powerful leaders can be held accountable under the law.
If the process Khan initiated
is seen through to fruition, the ICC will be uniquely positioned to reshape the
boundaries of international justice and hold war criminals – irrespective of
nationality, race, or religion – accountable. That moves us one step
closer to international law and another step away from the western-led era of
impunity.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario