The ICC's Credibility Crisis: Why It May Be Beyond Redemption

[Social Media]

 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has plunged into a legitimacy crisis following its issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This action, which has been denounced as improper, extra-jurisdictional, and illegitimate by France and other nations, has raised serious questions about the court's credibility and relevance. Far from upholding international justice, the ICC's decision appears to undermine its own authority and purpose.  

 

Critics argue that the warrant is not only without merit but also a profound violation of the court's own principles. The ICC’s decision has effectively positioned itself as an institution disregarding legal norms and overstepping its jurisdiction. This episode, in the view of many observers, signals the court's descent into irrelevance. Like the League of Nations after World War I, the ICC now risks being seen as an ineffectual and obsolete body, unworthy of continued funding or support.  

 

Former Attorney General Sir Michael Ellis underscores the foundational problem: the ICC has no authority over nations that are not signatories to its treaty. Both Israel and the United States have refrained from ratifying the Rome Statute that established the ICC, primarily due to concerns about potential bias. By targeting Netanyahu, the court disregarded this crucial limitation, effectively imposing its rules on a non-member state. This is akin to being forced to adhere to the policies of an organization you have no affiliation with—a glaring overreach that undermines the court’s credibility.  

 

Even among member states, the ICC's jurisdiction is limited. It can only intervene when a signatory nation is either unwilling or unable to prosecute credible allegations of wrongdoing. Israel, however, boasts a robust and impartial judicial system. Its courts have consistently demonstrated their independence, with decisions often challenging government actions. A notable example includes an Arab Israeli Supreme Court judge presiding over a case involving a Jewish prime minister. Despite these facts, the ICC chose to bypass Israel's established legal processes, further eroding its own legitimacy.  

 

The court’s dismissal of diplomatic immunity adds another layer of controversy. Diplomatic immunity for heads of government is a principle deeply rooted in international and British law, dating back to the early 18th century and recognized even in antiquity. Herodotus documented its existence in ancient times. By ignoring this long-established norm, the ICC has disregarded yet another cornerstone of international legal practice.  

 

The precision and legality of Israel's military actions have also been highlighted by experts such as Professor John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point Military Academy. Spencer asserts that Israel’s military operations are conducted with a level of precision surpassing those of Western powers, including the U.S. and the U.K. Despite these commendable standards, the ICC's focus has shifted to a democratically-elected leader defending his nation, rather than addressing more egregious violations of international law by regimes in Iran or Syria.  

 

The backlash to the ICC’s actions has been swift and widespread. Both the Biden administration and the anticipated Trump administration have expressed outrage, fearing the precedent set by targeting Netanyahu could extend to U.S. leaders. Other Western nations share this concern, viewing the warrant as an act of "lawfare"—the misuse of legal mechanisms to achieve political objectives.  

 

This debacle has dealt a severe blow to the ICC’s credibility. For an institution ostensibly committed to impartial justice, it has veered dangerously off course. If the ICC continues to prioritize politically motivated actions over principled legal standards, its survival as a meaningful entity is doubtful. As Ellis aptly concludes, the ICC may already be a sinking ship. Letting it slip beneath the waves might be the only way forward.  

 

Based on a report by Sir Michael Ellis ex Attorney General for England and Wales, Daily Telegraph 2024-12-02

 

Related Topics

ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant Over Alleged War Crimes

Australia Urged to Rethink ICC Membership Amid Controversial Arrest Warrants

Boris Johnson Accuses Starmer of Aligning with Hamas Over ICC Netanyahu Arrest Warrant

Trump's Storm Looms Over the ICC

 

 

 

[jippytum]

The UK should have left the ICC at  same time as Brexit. 

Time to stop this court from interfering in our attempts to deport illegal crimial immigrants. 

[RichardColeman]

Trump need to be voted in as president of the ICC (and the WHO) to sort out yet another lefty filled organisation

[dinsdale]

It's now an agenda driven activist institution.

Edited Monday at 12:52 AM by dinsdale

[Thingamabob]

The ICC is staffed by a bunch of self-serving, attention-seeking, pretentious malcontents, best ignored.

[expat_4_life]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

Former Attorney General Sir Michael Ellis underscores the foundational problem: the ICC has no authority over nations that are not signatories to its treaty.

 

Sir Michael Ellis doth protest too much.  Russia and Ukraine are not signatories to the treaty either.  Been struggling to find his article condemning the verdict handed down against Putin, likely because it does not exist.

The court should be disbanded as it's just political now. 🙈

[rickudon]

The Israeli propaganda machine is in full swing.

[Patong2021]

14 minutes ago, rickudon said:

The Israeli propaganda machine is in full swing.

 

The criticisms of the ICC were there long before the flawed arrest warrants for the Israelis were issued. The ICC had a hard on for  the USA during the last Trump presidency and it resulted in the USA taking action against the ICC chief prosecutor and the court itself. 

 

The ICC concept noble.  Unfortunately, it  is overly politicized and is a tool of biased forces. Over the past decade, the ICC has lost many of its key cases and instead fixated on popular causes. The prosecutors are often criticized as inept, biased and corrupt and court actions motivated more by political bias than by justice.  The very fact that France has stated that the ICC warrants are unenforceable because they are illegal should tell you something.