ICC, more righteous than rigorous

On Thursday, International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu, making him the first Israeli leader to face summons from an international tribunal for crimes against the Palestinian people. Along with him, former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas commander Mohammed Deif have been accused of 'war crimes' linked to the Oct 7 attacks on Israel and Israeli retaliations in Gaza that followed and continue. It is a legitimate charge. But does it amount to anything beyond virtue-signalling?

ICC's opprobrium counts for little for three reasons. One, enforcement hinges on member states' cooperation, and countries being signatories of the 1998 ICC Rome Statute - that established four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crime of aggression - in the first place. Countries like the US, Israel, China and India are not members, making ICC have no de facto and little de jure wherewithal to arrest anyone, including those charged by the court like Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin.

While arrests are rare, warrants may limit international travel for the accused - to signatory countries. Two, ICC's inconsistent track record challenges its credibility. Its investigation into allegations of war crimes by US armed forces and CIA in Afghanistan was resumed in 2022, but after preliminary hearings that started in 2020 had led to the US imposing sanctions on ICC prosecutors. Little progress has been made. Three, accusations of bias plague ICC, particularly against African countries.


Amid this dim backdrop, ICC's latest 'action' seems more righteous than rigorous. Multilateral action, instead, by like-minded nations can be more effective against the likes of Netanyahu.