ICC and Netanyahu: A Test for International Justice
Ocampo recalls that at the ICC’s inception the court nearly collapsed. He was told repeatedly that meetings with him were impossible because he was considered radioactive. Yet the former chief prosecutor believes the ICC and international law will endure despite a bleak global outlook. The test lies in the current power struggles surrounding an arrest warrant for war crimes against Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and how these clashes shape the future of global justice.
Israel, he notes, is aware of the stakes. Only if an Israeli prosecutor launches a genuine inquiry into Netanyahu and his defense minister would the case before the ICC be halted. In his view, many people still cling to an old approach while the world has moved on. The book he authored on past dictatorships and the pursuit of justice argues that the architecture of global justice has shifted in recent decades.
In his latest discussions, leaders of the G7, including European partners, did not commit to blocking Netanyahu from traveling to their countries. The question he asks is what those actions say about how justice is used in real political conflicts. He believes politicians have not understood how justice can help manage the crisis. So far, Europe and the United States have had little sway over Netanyahu. Rather than shielding him from a legal inquiry, they should let the ICC influence his choices. He is struck by the mismatch between the worlds in which policymakers and jurists operate.
Is it wise to view international justice as a deterrent? He answers yes. The stance of the G7, in his view, reduces pressure that an investigation would exert on Netanyahu and, by extension, harms Europe by prolonging the conflict. The simplest path to peace would be to apply the complementarity principle: if Israel initiates a meaningful investigation tomorrow, the ICC case would become inadmissible.
Do you think Israel would ever probe its own leadership? He suggests that is Israel’s strongest defense. He notes that the judges, prosecutors, and ICC spokespeople have made clear that a genuine Israeli probe into Netanyahu and his defense minister would render the case at the ICC inadmissible. There is no need for political shielding. The scenario is designed to prevent a trial from proceeding.
Some have argued that Netanyahu could try to travel to Germany or France, only to face an arrest warrant there. The European statements on immunity are not simple legal truths that apply across all courts. The claim that Netanyahu enjoys immunity is contested. A landmark ruling from 2002 clarified that high officials may enjoy immunity in national courts while in office but not before international courts. The ICC operates under a different legal regime from the national systems.
Another common argument is that it is not realistic for a world leader to face trial. The counterclaim is telling: the law applies to all, not only to enemies. If a leader of a major power escapes accountability, critics say, the law loses moral force. The idea that the law targets only particular figures undermines its legitimacy. If the law is bent to protect friends, there is little left to uphold the rule of law.
Is the ICC at risk of fading away? No. The threat existed when the court first began, but the institutional framework remains. After leaving office, he concluded his tenure with a legal adviser from a major Western government. The ICC will endure; Western states will continue funding it, and the arrest order will remain in force.
Some observers suggest European powers may have offered concessions for a ceasefire in Lebanon. It is uncertain whether that is accurate, but if it is true, it would underscore the importance of the ICC. The endgame has exposed a rift between Netanyahu and his hawkish circle, who once pressed toward war with Iran.
Putin is another name that comes up. He, too, bears an arrest warrant. Could the present situation benefit him? The view is that a new American president who favors transactional diplomacy could try to leverage that warrant to pressure Netanyahu. The UN Security Council, where Russia and the United States hold sway, also has the authority to suspend such warrants.
All told, the belief remains that international law is not dead. It is not. The rules forged after the Second World War remain a living system, even if the ICC is still learning how to fit into a complicated geopolitical landscape. There is more work ahead: the creation of specialized tribunals and prosecutors to address international terrorism that would also scrutinize groups like Hamas and their financiers. This approach would offer leaders a credible alternative to war. Spain, for instance, faced terrorism without resorting to bombardment, siege, or starving towns. It used the law to curb terrorism.
How can all this be reconciled with the victims’ right to redress? The foremost right for victims is to stay alive. They can then pursue civil redress. There is also a call to sanction companies that profit from war and to design new models that reduce tribal dynamics and deals among leaders. In this light, the European Union serves as a compelling example of reducing conflict among neighboring states. It is a reminder that durable peace can be achieved through law as well as diplomacy.