Llong confined to African terrain, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has for some time been attempting a beneficial move upmarket. The proceedings that Karim Khan, the Court’s prosecutor, now wishes to bring against Benyamin Netanyahu – the current Israeli Prime Minister – or Yahya Sinouar – the leader of Hamas – carry a universal message which must be welcomed. All those who trample on the rules of war should be held accountable. Humanitarian law is a safeguard against sad passions, against the temptation to go to extremes on different areas of conflict.
Whatever the justice of one’s cause, one must resist the impulses of revenge, all this unbridled violence which “makes the most reasonable bad”to resume the reaction of Achilles, his tears and his anger, to the announcement of the death of his companion, Patroclus (theIliad, canto XVIII). Justice is also there to preserve the future. But taking an interest in real time in the actions of all belligerents, including the most powerful, exposes one to intimidation operations and disqualification trials.
In twenty years of existence, the ICC has had to face the hostility of the United States when it looked into crimes committed by their officials in detention centers in Afghanistan, at the heart of the “war on terrorism” launched by the administration of George W. Bush. She also came under intense pressure when she wanted to discuss allegations against British nationals in the context of the Iraqi conflict and the occupation of this country from 2003 to 2008. And the Court is now facing opposition Russian due to the prosecution of Vladimir Putin. The prosecutor and several judges of the Court, particularly threatened, live under close protection. Is it then very reasonable to open a new front?
THE Guardian, Le Monde and other media have just revealed the full extent of the pressure already exerted by Israel against the various organs of this international criminal jurisdiction.
The situation in Palestine constitutes a new test of truth for the ICC. But, with its mobilization in the situation in Ukraine, the passivity of the Court with regard to the other major crisis situation in the world was no longer acceptable. Anyone who has traveled to Africa, to the Middle East, to what is called the “global South”, knows to what extent double standard trials weigh on the legitimacy of the Court and the values defended by Westerners.
You have 49.26% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.