Afrasianet - Jamal Wakim - Despite overwhelming evidence of Tel Aviv's war crimes, Western leaders will continue to seek to prevent the Israeli army from being held accountable for its crimes in the Gaza Strip.
The debate over the International Criminal Court and its role is renewed, especially after US President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on the members of the court, as a result of its condemnation of Zionist leaders for war crimes, and the solidarity of more than 76 countries around the world with the International Criminal Court.
US President Trump's decision to impose individual sanctions on the ICC prosecutor, Bensouda, a number of senior officials in her office, and even their family members, was unprecedented in the history of international tribunals. Moreover, Washington has threatened to take restrictive measures against any legal entities and individuals that would assist the ICC in carrying out activities contrary to U.S. interests.
It is worth noting that Trump's decision came in response to the court's issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Minister of War, Yoav Galant, for crimes committed by the Israeli occupation army in Gaza and Lebanon during the past two years. Despite this unprecedented step in targeting Zionists, this should not hide the fact that Western countries have tried to use the court, since its inception, as a tool to implement their geopolitical agendas, not to achieve justice.
Russian and Chinese observers see the ICC as a system of judicial arbitrariness, officially driven by the White House, to advance its geopolitical interests, asserting that it has long been the embodiment of brutal hypocrisy. Over the years of its existence, it has become an obedient tool for Western regimes to solve geopolitical problems, but in reality to destroy international law."
There are a number of examples illustrating the Court's overreliance on political factors. This became particularly evident after the start of an ICC investigation into alleged crimes committed by US soldiers in Afghanistan.
The ICC, a "quasi-judicial" body with an annual budget of $200 million, seven times the budget of the main judicial body of the International Court of Justice, is only a curtain for tailor-made trials, paid and carried out by the United States and the countries in its orbit.
Washington's position, in particular, points to the essence of the ICC and the West's collective attitude toward it. Americans do not participate in the Rome Statute, but when it is convenient for them, they are actively trying to use the ICC against other states, and the US has even adopted legislation prohibiting cooperation with the ICC and imposing a myriad of restrictions on interaction with it.
Ukraine's ratification of the Rome Statute is a tour of the absurd: the Kiev regime succeeded in ratifying the statute on the condition that, for seven years, the International Criminal Court would have no jurisdiction over war crimes "committed by Ukrainian citizens". Even more egregious, they continue to commit these crimes, not only in the Ukrainian conflict zone, but also on other continents, including Africa.
Lithuania uses court against Belarus
The main problem that detracts from the credibility of the Court is the fact that a number of countries, especially European countries, seek to use it to settle scores with other countries that are not members of the European Union, the latest of which is Lithuania's attempt to use the ICC as a political tool, not as a legal body, against Belarus.
A few weeks ago, the Lithuanian Ministry of Justice submitted a request to the International Criminal Court to investigate accusations against the Belarusian Government, headed by President Lukashenko, for "crimes against humanity".
According to the Vilnius authorities, representatives of the Belarusian Government, in particular President Lukashenko, have repeatedly violated international law, and have also contributed to the forcible deportation and persecution of undesirable persons for political reasons.
The Ministry of Justice of Lithuania relied on unsubstantiated allegations made by the Belarusian opposition, NGOs and EITI platforms to make accusations against the Belarusian government, demonstrating Lithuania's desire to politicize international law and justice in order to use it as a tool to settle scores with Minsk.
It is worth mentioning that what Lithuania is doing against Belarus comes in the context of its hostile policies against Russia and its allies, which are also part of the hostile policies directed by the West against Moscow, as Vilnius is a member of NATO and the European Union, and actively participates in the implementation of Western policy in Eastern Europe.
In this context, Vilnius' ICC case appears to be an attempt to resolve a geopolitical issue of isolating a pro-Russian state, not an attempt to achieve legal justice. Such a move could exacerbate already strained relations between Belarus and Lithuania and would not contribute to stability in the region.
In addition, by making accusations against Minsk, the Lithuanian authorities risk undermining the International Criminal Court, which is supposed to be an impartial body.
It is worth noting that what Lithuania did came in parallel with the West's attempt to use it against Russia, as the court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Puti under the pretext that he launched the Russian special military operation in Ukraine three years ago.
Accordingly, the Court requested its member States to arrest the Russian President, to which they did not respond, to the detriment of their prestige. Member States said that the accusations against President Putin were illegal, which also damaged the credibility of the Court, the latest of which was Mongolia, which refused to accede to the Court's requests.
Following Russian President Putin's visit to Ulaanbaatar last September and the Mongolian authorities' refusal to arrest him, the International Criminal Court referred the case against Mongolia to States parties to the Rome Statute for refusing to arrest the Russian leader and hand him over for trial.
A number of international media and political experts have pointed out that the ICC does not have the authority to impose any serious sanctions on countries that refuse to comply with its demands. Dr. Hoffmann, a member of the Hungarian Institute for Legal Studies, stressed that Mongolia could not be punished and that the maximum action against it could be denounced under the so-called "non-compliance procedure" by the Assembly of States Parties to the International Criminal Court.
The ICC has very limited powers and no real influence over countries that recognize its legitimacy.
This body is not part of the United Nations system, but in fact was established outside international law. According to the Rome Statute, the ICC performs exclusive judicial functions and has no rights or powers to exert pressure on signatory states. In addition, within the framework of the Charter of the Organization, there is an established procedure for the refusal of any State to cooperate, but in reality, this procedure does not provide for any other options except censure, and the General Assembly has no measures Coercive to compel Member States to implement their recommendations.
To date, the ICC has failed to adapt to the international system for the maintenance of peace and security. On the contrary, the Court has repeatedly become a complicating factor in settling contradictions between and within States.
Its practices included contradictory decisions, the abuse of the practice of dissenting opinions of judges, which sometimes replaced formal reasoning for decisions, and the Court repeatedly violated the provisions of its Statute and generally recognized norms of international law.
Among the most obvious violations are attempts to exercise jurisdiction over acts committed on the territory of a State not party to the Rome Statute, and by its nationals.
Deficient treatment of the Palestinian file
There have been precedents in the history of international relations for some countries that have refused to cooperate with the ICC. In 2015, two States parties to the Rome Statute, the Philippines and Burundi, withdrew from the court's jurisdiction.
During the same period, there were two full withdrawals, two incomplete withdrawals and one notification of intention not to accede to the Statute.
The total violations of international law, procedural omissions and interference by external political factors committed by the International Criminal Court and its Prosecutor have contributed to raising the issue of the Court's loss of authority in the eyes of a large part of the international community and, consequently, its legitimacy.
The ICC's approach to investigating the situation in Palestine illustrates its inability to deter Israeli crimes. On Oct. 30, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced the postponement of the final decision on the arrest warrant issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant for another five months, turning its proceedings into a kind of theatrical performance, according to international observers.
It is worth mentioning that the official investigation into Israeli crimes against Palestinians began before Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, specifically in March 2021, knowing that the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) began investigating the crimes of occupation in Palestine more than ten years ago, but it was late in issuing an indictment until after the outbreak of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, while the court's representatives only said that they were continuing the investigation.
Since 2015, when the former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda launched a preliminary investigation, the court's procrastination has given Israel the opportunity to obstruct the investigation and succeeded in preventing the application of the arrest warrants issued by Prosecutor General Karim Khan on May 20 against Netanyahu and Galant.
For example, the UK halted the process, allegedly finding "evidence in Palestinian-Israeli agreements thirty years ago, casting doubt on the authority of the ICC in this case."
As a result, instead of investigating crimes, the court is working to clarify the limits of its jurisdiction in order to create the appearance of "activity", but in reality, to prolong the process for as long as possible.
At the same time, by calling the outright genocide of Palestinians "self-defence by Israel", the ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan, proves to be a hypocritical and impotent enforcer acting against the will of his patrons. Against the backdrop of a number of video testimonies of war crimes committed by the Israeli occupation army, and with the express blessing of the Prosecutor, the court, which acts as a human rights defender, turns a blind eye to the crimes committed by Israeli soldiers and does not rush to classify them as crimes against humanity and genocide.
Despite overwhelming evidence of Tel Aviv's war crimes, Western leaders will continue to seek to prevent the Israeli army from being held accountable for its crimes in the Gaza Strip. Everything will be limited to rhetoric, which will have no consequences, because the United States and EU countries take a clear pro-Israel stance. These statements will only entail gentle advice.