The arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court on Thursday for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas’s military chief Mohammed Deif mark a historic development for a body that has struggled for 22 years with a lack of recognition and enforcement power.
Backed by 124 member states, soon to be joined by Ukraine, the Hague-based jurisdiction seeks to prosecute individuals responsible for the world’s gravest crimes when countries are unwilling or unable to do so themselves.
The wheels of international justice turn slowly, as evidenced by the court’s low conviction rate.
But it is not all about the final judgement, experts say. The mere fact of pursuing alleged perpetrators of atrocities sends a message that the international community is determined to fight impunity, experts say.
– Catch me if you can –
Since it began work in 2002, the ICC has opened 32 cases for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and offenses against the administration of justice.
Fourteen of them, or roughly 40 percent, are still ongoing, in most cases because the suspects are still at large.
Without a police force, the Hague-based court is unlikely to catch them soon.
Of the 56 arrest warrants issued since 2002, only 21 have been executed.
The ICC relies on states to apprehend suspects but the incentive for them to cooperate is low because the court has “nothing to offer in return, except a commitment to seeing justice served”, former ICC adviser Pascal Turlan said.
The court’s wanted list includes Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is sought for alleged war crimes related to the invasion of Ukraine, and Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony.
Russia is one of dozens of nations, including the United States, Israel and China, that do not recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC, hampering its ability to investigate their nationals.
But some member states also defy its authority, for instance by refusing to hand over suspects. In early September, Putin was warmly hosted in Mongolia, an ICC member.
“When states don’t like what the ICC does, they don’t often cooperate,” said Nancy Combs, a professor at William & Mary Law School in the US state of Virginia.
ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah said the court’s role was not to go after all suspected war criminals but to “encourage nations to deal with their own cases”.
Each case comes with a unique set of challenges, from interference by national governments to witness intimidation, which caused the case against Kenya’s former deputy president William Ruto, now the current president, to fall apart in 2016.
These challenges partly explain the court’s low conviction rate.
Since its inception it has handed down 12 guilty verdicts, mostly against officials from the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, and the latest against a senior jihadist from Mali, and four acquittals.
Combs noted that some African countries, including Uganda, Ivory Coast and the DRC, had referred their nationals to the ICC.
The warrant against Netanyahu is the first time the court has gone after the head of a Western-backed country, drawing the ire of Israel.
Although it is unlikely that Netanyahu or Hamas leaders will face justice in The Hague anytime soon, they could face arrest if they travel to Britain, France or any of the dozens of other countries that recognise the ICC.
Even then, the chances of securing a conviction are slim.
Combs said however that ICC investigations could act as a deterrent and pack an ethical punch: “A lot of the point is to do what’s right even if you know that, in the short term, it’s probably not going to make a big difference.”
olb-lam/jmy/ang/js
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
