Nigel Biggar, a Cambridge professor takes a different view -
"Had it been sitting in judgement on the prosecution of the war against the massively murderous Nazi empire by Britain and the US, the ICC would have issued arrest warrants for Churchill and Eisenhower. While invading Italy in 1943, the Allies caused old men, women, and children to be torn apart by bombs and shells, exposed to the wintry elements by the destruction of their homes, and starved of food and water. They did this ‘knowingly’, aware of the effects of their unavoidably imprecise bombing and shelling. But they didn’t intend civilian harm and sought to minimise it, as far as war-winning allowed. Nonetheless, their efforts weren’t ‘adequate’ to save tens of thousands from perishing.
The presumptuousness of a court that declares itself devoted to the cause of ‘lasting peace’, its novel and imprudent intrusion of a concept of fundamental human rights into the laws of war, and its neglect of the principle of double effect, all combine to drive a legal interpretation that makes successful war-fighting unlawful, however just its cause. Thereby the ICC undermines its own authority, forcing states intent on military victory to repudiate its jurisdiction."
Recommended Posts