Hafeez Ahmed Khan

On May 24, a landmark decision was rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which mandated that Israel halt its military activities in the southern region of Gaza and facilitate the opening of the Rafah crossing. This directive was aimed at providing urgent aid to the distressed Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza. This ruling came on the heels of a request made on May 20 by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), who sought the issuance of arrest warrants for several high-profile figures. These included Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Hamas Chief Yahya Sinwar, Commander of the Hamas military wing Mohammad Al-Masri, and Ismail Haniyeh, the Head of Hamas’s Political Bureau. Despite these significant judicial orders, they have yet to influence Israel’s actions due to the absence of enforcement mechanisms.

The ICC’s call for arrest warrants targeting the Israeli Prime Minister, the Defense Minister, and three Hamas leaders elicited a range of reactions. The ICC has previously issued arrest warrants for individuals such as General Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, the former President of Sudan, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, citing war crimes. However, the court has struggled to enforce these orders. In defence of its recent actions, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor articulated that the alleged war crimes were perpetrated amid an international conflict between Israel and Palestine, alongside a concurrent non-international conflict involving Israel and Hamas. The office contended that the crimes against humanity charged were consistent with a broad and systematic assault on Israel’s civilian population by Hamas and other militant factions, following their organizational policies—a situation that, according to their assessment, persists.

The ICC implicated the leadership of Hamas in initiating hostilities against Israel on October 7, 2023, with attacks on the nation. Concurrently, Israel’s Prime Minister and Defense Minister were accused of committing crimes against humanity through relentless assaults on Palestinians, resulting in over 35,000 deaths and the displacement of millions. Both Hamas and Israel have voiced objections to the ICC’s decision, albeit for different reasons. Hamas criticized the ICC for drawing a false equivalence between the victim and the aggressor, while Israel denounced the call for arrest warrants. The subsequent ICJ ruling, which demands the cessation of Israeli military operations in southern Gaza and the opening of the Rafah crossing, may not exert any tangible influence on Israel, given the support it receives from the United States.

Before the ICC’s assertive move to issue arrest warrants against Israeli officials and Hamas leaders, the court had responded to a South African request by holding Israel accountable for the genocide of Palestinians since October 7 of the previous year. ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, in his rationale for issuing arrest warrants, emphasized that while Israel, like any nation, possesses the right to defend its populace, this right does not exempt it or any other state from adhering to international humanitarian law. Similarly, the leaders of Hamas were accused of being responsible for the group’s crimes, including extermination, murder, and other forms of violence.

Among the 193 United Nations member states, 123 are signatories to the ICC and have pledged to arrest individuals wanted by the court if they are found within their territories. The effectiveness of the ICC’s moral authority in enforcing its decisions, particularly concerning the conflict in Gaza, remains to be seen. Nonetheless, by seeking the arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister, the ICC has intensified pressure on Israel, substantiating claims that Israel has denied essential resources such as food, water, medicine, and energy, thereby exacerbating the plight of the besieged Palestinian population in Gaza since October 7.

The ICC has amassed substantial and thoroughly researched evidence against both the Hamas leadership and the Israeli government. The documented instances of killings, abductions, and relentless bombings of Gaza’s civilian population stand as irrefutable proof of war crimes against humanity. Whether these allegations will lead to concrete actions and accountability is a matter that continues to unfold on the international stage.

The implementation of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) orders is crucial for several reasons:

• Ending Impunity: The ICC plays a pivotal role in ending impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. By implementing its orders, states contribute to the prevention of such crimes.
• Establishing the Rule of Law: The ICC’s mandate is to ensure that severe crimes do not go unpunished and to promote respect for international law. Implementing its orders reinforces the rule of law at both national and international levels.
• Preventing Future Crimes: The ICC aims to deter future crimes by holding perpetrators accountable. When orders are implemented, it sends a strong message that such crimes will have consequences, thereby contributing to their prevention.
• Justice for Victims: The ICC seeks to provide justice for victims of the most heinous crimes. Implementation of its orders ensures that victims’ suffering is acknowledged and that they receive some form of redress.
• Upholding International Norms: The ICC represents an international effort to enforce norms and standards that protect human rights and human dignity. Implementing its orders upholds these norms and demonstrates a commitment to international cooperation in the pursuit of justice.

In essence, the ICC’s orders are not just legal directives but also embody the collective conscience of the international community towards justice and human rights. Their implementation is a testament to the global commitment to these ideals.