Search

As the storm of ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s request for arrest warrants loomed and landed on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, ardent supporters of Israel within the U.S. and U.K. governments and beyond appear to have seized upon a jurisdictional objection. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is reported as saying that the “ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter.” The U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron is reported to have said the same thing. There is a basic flaw, though, in the treaty-based objection to the ICC jurisdiction as has been made. It ignores the nature of the mandate of international criminal tribunals as mechanisms for the effective preservation of the basic fabric of the international order.

Since the ICC announced arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, the world has started to observe open equivocation from France and other European states about executing those arrest warrants. This inevitably raises the question whether it had been too easy in the past for nations of the West to profess “unflinching support” for the ICC when all the accused persons were Africans; even though the conducts of some of them (consider, for instance, the defendants from Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire) came nowhere close to the extravagant cruelty on full display in Gaza, despite rulings of the International Court of Justice and the relentless appeals of the UN Secretary General.