Currently, Palestine has before the International Criminal Court, a complaint filed on behalf of the Palestinian people, against the State of Israel for war crimes committed during last years war on the people of Gaza. Having been an eye-witness to this war remotely through distributed real-time streaming video cameras throughout the conflict zone I strongly feel it is justified.
The question here is not about Palestine, or Israel, or the definition of war crimes, it goes more to the credibility of the International Court, to bring about meaningful justice to those found guilty. Israel is not a member of the ICC, nor is the United States, who by all rights and purposes, is as well complicit in these crimes, as they willfully supported the war with weapons, support and financial aid. Other nations may also be at risk complicity, for doing the same, who may or may not be a signatory member of the Rome Statute that created the ICC.
This of course brings to bear the question of outside pressure being born to the ICC to facilitate stifling whatever agenda, outside of International law, demands. Including subversive tactics to prevent the legal wheel from turning. This then becomes the focal point of this concern. How can we insure the ICC is a viable and credible source to seek justice on the International stage. How do we prevent any outside interference from non-member states from influencing the Court?
The picture shown is of the UN school in Gaza being bombed by Israel with white phosphor weapons. The effect was devastating and killed many innocents sheltered within from the war. There is no question the rule of law was broken. How to enforce same is problematic. This becomes a serious question as to what exactly the ICC can do when non-member states refuse any legal action by the ICC. Without an enforcement unit to see that justice is carried out regardless, it then begs the question as to it’s viability as a world court.
Pressure on the United Nations to address this issue falls into the same situation with the veto power of non-member states and their proxies sitting on the UN Security Council. Again we encounter the credibility of the UN to prevent further crimes against a member state who is engaged in internationally recognized criminal activity. This is an enormous failure on the world body to prevent unjustified humanitarian grief for which it was originally charted to do when formed.
If the UN and the ICC are to remain legitimate entities to solve world issues by the rule of law, things must change drastically. or what’s the point. There would be absolutely no recourse but war. A war no one wants, and could be prevented from, if the UN and ICC were capable of performing their chartered duties uninfected by negative agendas. If the actors are not held accountable for their actions before a court of law the recourse is war or capitulation, and neither of those is acceptable in the 21st century.