International Criminal Court

Subterms

    Latest story

    75 Shares16 Views

    Why Rodrigo Duterte Was Arrested Now

    by

    Running parallel to Rodrigo Duterte’s transfer to the International Court of Justice in The Hague is a monthslong feud with the Philippines’ current president.The arrest warrant was delivered to President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. of the Philippines in Manila at 3 a.m. Monday. The person named on it: his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, the firebrand whose war on drugs left thousands of people dead.But acting on the warrant from the International Criminal Court was not straightforward, since the Philippines is not a member of the court. So at 6:30 a.m., Mr. Marcos’s government received another warrant for Mr. Duterte, this time from Interpol, which was acting on the court’s behalf and of which the Philippines is a member.Mr. Marcos recalled his next step in an address to the nation on Tuesday. “OK, we’ll put all our plans into place, and let’s proceed as we had discussed,” he relayed having told the head of his justice department.Just over 24 hours later, Mr. Duterte — who long seemed above the law — was arrested in Manila. By the end of Tuesday, he had been put on a plane bound for The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity.It was a swift coda to a long chapter of impunity in the Philippines. Only a handful of people have been convicted in connection with the killings in Mr. Duterte’s drug war, in which as many as 30,000 are estimated to have died. Now, the man who publicly took credit for the carnage was being sent to a court of law to face justice, in part because of a shift in political winds.Mr. Marcos, the son of the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos, rose to power after forming an alliance with Sara Duterte, a daughter of Mr. Duterte’s. Running on a platform of national unity, they won the presidency and vice presidency in 2022. But their marriage of convenience started unraveling quickly, driven by mistrust.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares54 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Israel’s aid blockade: pushing Palestinians toward catastrophe | Editorial

      by

      Israel’s decision to block aid to Gaza, as ceasefire talks falter, is a devastating blow to 2 million hungry, vulnerable civilians in the shattered territory. As the occupying power, Israel is legally bound to allow relief into Gaza under the Geneva convention. Denying it isn’t just inhumane – it’s a war crime. But Benjamin Netanyahu already faces an international criminal court arrest warrant for “starvation as a method of warfare” and “crimes against humanity”.Mr Netanyahu’s ability to flout international law is thanks to Donald Trump, who remains firmly in his corner. Washington now appears to accept starvation as an Israeli bargaining chip to pressure Hamas into accepting a US-devised truce extension – one that secures hostage exchanges while ensuring Israeli forces remain in Gaza. Hamas, which sparked the war with its 2023 massacre of Israeli civilians, insists Israel honour its commitment to a second phase of Gaza ceasefire negotiations – ending the fighting and withdrawing troops.Palestinians in Gaza are on the brink. Food is running out, hospitals are unable to function and families scavenge for clean water. Any further aid restrictions will turn desperation into catastrophe. It would be far better for a negotiated peace to be worked out that would see the Palestinians stay to rebuild their lives and for the remaining Israeli hostages to return home.After 15 months of war, and having achieved many of its declared objectives, Israel is no closer to peace in Gaza. That view is echoed by Scott Atran of Paris’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, who polled civilians in Gaza in January, shortly before the ceasefire came into effect. Prof Atran correctly argues that Israel lacks a political strategy for Palestine’s future and is only fuelling Palestinian anger.From the outset, the Trump administration has pursued an aggressive, unilateral approach to Gaza, aligning firmly with Israeli interests while disregarding Palestinian concerns. According to Nabeel Khoury, a former US state department official, the Abraham accords – Mr Trump’s flagship Middle East initiative – remain central to Washington’s evolving strategy, one that envisions Israeli territorial consolidation and unchallenged regional dominance.Mr Khoury has noted the US’s immediate priority is the wholesale removal of Palestinians from Gaza, followed, if conditions permit, by a gradual takeover of the West Bank. That vision coincides with the Washington visit of Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, a pro-annexationist who has warned Mr Netanyahu that he would collapse the government if Israeli troops withdrew from Gaza under a truce.An Arab-led plan for Gaza’s post-war reconstruction – allowing its 2 million residents to remain – was rebuffed by the US and Israel. Yet it marked an important show of force: a pan-Arab coalition pushing back against the visible Netanyahu-Trump effort to erase Palestinian self-determination. In contrast, reports suggest the Trump administration is in direct talks with Hamas.If true, this would be a striking reversal of US policy. Engaging Hamas – once deemed untouchable – as a US negotiating partner might be pragmatic realism, an example of Trumpian transactional diplomacy or both. The UN estimated in 2019 that oil and natural gas resources in the occupied Palestinian territories could generate hundreds of billions of dollars for development. But Palestinian national aspirations are impossible under occupation.

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 125 Shares87 Views

      in US Politics

      America must not surrender its Democratic values | Bernie Sanders

      by

      For 250 years, the United States has held itself up as a symbol of democracy – an example of freedom and self-governance to which the rest of the world could aspire. People have long looked to our declaration of independence and constitution as blueprints for how to guarantee those human rights and freedoms.Tragically, all of that is changing. As Donald Trump moves this country towards authoritarianism, he is aligning himself with dictators and despots who share his disdain for democracy and the rule of law.This week, in a radical departure from longstanding US policy, the Trump administration voted against a United Nations resolution which clearly stated that Russia began the horrific war with Ukraine. That resolution also called on Russia to withdraw its forces from occupied Ukraine, in line with international law. The resolution was brought forward by our closest allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and dozens more democratic nations. And 93 countries voted “yes”.Rather than side with our longstanding allies to preserve democracy and uphold international law, the president voted with authoritarian countries such as Russia, North Korea, Iran and Belarus to oppose the resolution. Many of the other opponents of that resolution are undemocratic nations propped up by Russian military aid.Let’s be clear: this was not just another UN vote. This was the president of the United States turning his back on 250 years of our history and openly aligning himself with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. This was the president of the United States undermining the independence of Ukraine.And let us not forget who Putin is. He is the man who crushed Russia’s movement towards democracy after the end of the cold war. He steals elections, murders political dissidents and crushes freedom of the press. He has maintained control in Russia by offering the oligarchs there a simple deal: if you give me absolute power, I will let you steal as much as you want from the Russian people. He sparked the bloodiest war in Europe since the second world war.It has been three years since Russia’s brutal, unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More than 1 million people have been killed or injured because of Putin’s aggression. Every single day, Russia rains down hundreds of missiles and drones on Ukrainian cities. Putin’s forces have massacred civilians and kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children, bringing them back to Russian “re-education” camps. These atrocities led the international criminal court to issue an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 as a war criminal.Not only is Trump aligning himself with Putin’s Russia, he is prepared to extort Ukraine for its natural resources. While a proud nation desperately fights for its life, Trump is focused on helping his billionaire friends make a fortune excavating rare earths and other minerals.But Trump’s turn toward authoritarianism and rejection of international law goes well beyond Ukraine.The president sees the world’s dictators as his friends, our democratic allies as his enemies and the use of military force as the way to achieve his goals. Disgracefully, he wants to push 2.2 million Palestinians out of their homeland in order to build a billionaire’s playground in Gaza. He talks openly about annexing Greenland from Denmark. He says the United States should take back the Panama canal. And he ruptures our friendship with our Canadian neighbors by telling them they should become the 51st state in the union.Alongside his fellow oligarchs in Russia, Saudi Arabia and around the globe, Trump wants a world ruled by authoritarians in which might makes right, and where democracy and moral values cease to exist.Just over a century ago, a handful of monarchs, emperors and tsars ruled most of the world. Sitting in extreme opulence, they claimed that absolute power was their “divine right”. But ordinary people disagreed.Slowly and painfully, in countries throughout the world, they clawed their way toward democracy and rejected colonialism.At our best, the US has played a key role in the movement toward freedom. From Gettysburg to Normandy, millions of Americans have fought – and many have died – to defend democracy, often alongside brave men and women from other nations.This is a turning point – a moment of enormous consequence in world history. Do we go forward toward a more democratic, just and humane world? Or do we retreat back into oligarchy, authoritarianism, colonialism and the rejection of international law?As Americans, we cannot stay quiet as Trump abandons centuries of our commitment to democracy. Together, we must fight for our long-held values and work with people around the world who share them.

      Bernie Sanders is a US senator and a ranking member of the health, education, labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s sanctions against the ICC are disgraceful | Kenneth Roth

      by

      Donald Trump’s executive order reauthorizing sanctions against international criminal court (ICC) personnel reflects a disgraceful effort to ensure that no American, or citizen of an ally such as Israel, is ever investigated or prosecuted. Quite apart from this warped sense of justice – that it is only for other people – the president’s limited view of the court’s powers was rejected in the treaty establishing the court and repudiated by the Joe Biden administration and even the Republican party. But that didn’t stop Trump.The US government traditionally has had no problem with two of the three ways that the court can obtain jurisdiction because it could control them. Washington is fine with the court prosecuting citizens of states that are members of the court because it has no intention of joining them. And it accepts that the United Nations security council can confer jurisdiction because it can exercise its veto to block prosecutions it doesn’t like.But the court’s founding document, the Rome Statute, allows a third route to jurisdiction. The court can investigate or prosecute crimes that occur on the territory of a member state, even if the perpetrator is the citizen of a non-member state. That was why Trump in his first term objected to an ICC preliminary examination in Afghanistan (and imposed sanctions – freezing assets and limiting travel – on the chief prosecutor at the time, Fatou Bensouda, and one of her deputies) because the investigation might have implicated CIA torturers in that country under George W Bush. Trump in his new executive order alludes to the prosecutor’s actions in Afghanistan, but it is a non-issue because the current ICC chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has made clear that those past crimes are not his priority.The real issue is Israel. That same territorial jurisdiction is how the ICC was able to charge Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, for their starvation strategy targeting Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Israel never joined the court, but Palestine did, conferring jurisdiction for crimes committed on Palestinian territory, including Gaza, regardless of the perpetrator’s citizenship.Referring to the United States and Israel, Trump’s executive order says: “Neither country has ever recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction, and both nations are thriving democracies with militaries that strictly adhere to the laws of war.” These claims are legally irrelevant.The US opposition to territorial jurisdiction was rejected by the drafters of the ICC treaty by an overwhelming vote of 120-7. The only governments to join the United States in opposing it were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen.Moreover, there is no ICC exception for “thriving democracies” or governments that purport to respect the laws of war. As any justice institution should, its jurisdiction applies to governments regardless of their character or stated policy. The sole exception is under what is known as the “principle of complementarity”, in which the court defers to good-faith national investigations and prosecutions.But Israel has no history of prosecuting its leaders for war crimes, and despite the ICC charges against Netanyahu and Gallant, it has announced no investigation of their starvation strategy in Gaza. To the contrary, Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency threatened Bensouda – the former ICC prosecutor – and her husband. That hardly reflects good-faith pursuit of possible war crimes.For two decades, the US government objected to territorial jurisdiction, but when the ICC charged Vladimir Putin, it abandoned that position. Putin was charged for kidnapping Ukrainian children and taking them to Russia. Russia has never joined the court, so the sole basis for the court acting was territorial jurisdiction – Putin’s alleged crime took place in Ukraine, which had conferred jurisdiction.That was a game-changer. Biden called the charges “justified”. Even prominent Republicans such as Lindsey Graham, one of the foreign policy leaders in the Senate, shifted. Joined by a long bipartisan list of sponsors, he secured unanimous adoption in March 2022 of a resolution endorsing the ICC’s prosecution of war crimes in Ukraine. Graham said that Putin’s “war crimes spree” had “rehabilitate[d] the ICC in the eyes of the Republican party and the American people”. Other Republicans visited the ICC prosecutor to support the prosecution of Putin.Yet this shift turned out to be only tactical. It did not survive the Israel exception to human rights principles. Now that senior Israeli officials have been charged, Trump has resurrected the objection to the ICC’s territorial jurisdiction.There is nothing the least bit radical about asserting jurisdiction over people who commit a crime on foreign territory. If I, an American citizen, murdered someone in London, Washington could hardly object if British authorities prosecuted me. By the same token, Britain would have every right to delegate that power to the ICC if, because of a crisis such as an occupation, it were unable to pursue the matter itself.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump is inviting trouble with his unprincipled stand. Article 70 of the Rome Statute authorizes prosecution for what Americans call “obstruction of justice” if anyone tries to impede or intimidate an official of the court because of their official duties. Bensouda essentially turned the other cheek when Trump sanctioned her. I would be surprised if Khan, the current prosecutor, were so understanding. The court would have jurisdiction over Trump because he is interfering with a pending prosecution.Trump might try to shrug off ICC charges, figuring that no one would dare to arrest him, but he would face other consequences. Because all 125 ICC member states would have a legal duty to arrest him were he to show up, they would probably tell him quietly that he is not welcome. Trump should ask Putin, who had to skip the August 2023 Brics summit in Johannesburg for the same reason, what it feels like to be a global pariah.Israel has other options. It could open a genuine, independent investigation of the starvation strategy and let the chips fall where they may. Netanyahu and Gallant, if they have a defense, could show up in the Hague and contest the charges, the way former Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta did. But Trump obstructing justice is not the answer.

      Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs, will be published by Knopf on February 25 More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Imposes Sanctions on the ICC, Accusing It of Targeting the U.S. and Israel

      by

      President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday placing sanctions on the International Criminal Court, saying that his administration would “impose tangible and significant consequences” on people who work on investigations that threaten the national security of the United States and its allies, including Israel.The court faced backlash from the U.S. and Israel in November over its decision to issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the course of its conflict with Hamas in Gaza.Mr. Trump’s order said that the court’s actions against Israel and its preliminary investigations concerning the United States “set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel” by exposing them to harassment and the risk of international criminal prosecution.“The I.C.C. has, without a legitimate basis, asserted jurisdiction over and opened preliminary investigations concerning personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including Israel, and has further abused its power” in issuing the warrants for Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant, the order said.The order said the sanctions could include the blocking of purchases of property and assets, and barring I.C.C. officials and their immediate family members from entering the United States.Neither the United States nor Israel recognizes the I.C.C.’s jurisdiction, but the court accepted Palestine as a member in 2015, giving it jurisdiction over international crimes that take place in Gaza.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump imposes sanctions on ICC, accusing it of targeting US and Israel

      by

      Donald Trump has signed an executive order authorizing sanctions against individuals and their families who assist the international criminal court (ICC), accusing the body of “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel”.Trump has been a vocal critic of the ICC since it issued arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, along with several Hamas leaders simultaneously.The signing of the order coincides with Netanyahu’s visit to the US Capitol, which included an Oval Office meeting earlier this week.It was unclear how quickly the Trump administration would announce names of people sanctioned.Since facing backlash in Washington for the warrants, the ICC had been bracing itself for retaliatory moves by Trump.The threat of US sanctions has loomed over the court for months, with multiple ICC sources saying that the court’s leadership feared Trump would not wait for legislation to pass but rather would issue a swift executive order creating the legal basis for multiple rounds of sanctions.Officials described it as a “worst case scenario” that the US would impose sanctions against the institution in addition to measures targeting individuals.Trump has previously argued that the ICC had “no jurisdiction, no legitimacy and no authority” in the US during his first term as president. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Former Defense Minister Accuses Israel of Committing War Crimes in Gaza

      by

      The comments by Moshe Yaalon were swiftly denied and condemned by allies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who said that they would hurt the country and help its enemies.A former Israeli defense minister has accused Israel of committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip, a rare critique from a member of the security establishment at a time of war.The comments by Moshe Yaalon came amid mounting criticism of the Israeli military’s conduct in Gaza. They were swiftly denied and condemned by allies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, saying that they would hurt the country and help its enemies.Mr. Yaalon served as the Israeli military’s chief of staff during the second intifada and as Mr. Netanyahu’s defense minister during the 2014 war in Gaza, the longest conflict between Israel and Hamas before the current war. But he broke with Mr. Netanyahu in 2016 and has since become a critic of the Israeli leader.At an event on Saturday, Mr. Yaalon denounced Mr. Netanyahu’s government for its actions in Gaza.“The path they’re dragging us down is to occupy, annex, and ethnically cleanse — look at the northern strip,” he said. He also said Israel was being pulled in the direction of building settlements in Gaza, a notion that is supported by far-right politicians in Mr. Netanyahu’s government.When the interviewer at the event asked Mr. Yaalon to clarify whether he thought Israel was on the way to carrying out ethnic cleansing, he responded: “Why on the way? What’s happening there? What’s happening there?”“There’s no Beit Lahia. There’s no Beit Hanoun. They’re now operating in Jabaliya. They’re basically cleaning the territory of Arabs,” he said, referring to towns and cities in northern Gaza where a renewed Israeli offensive against the militant group Hamas has caused extensive damage in recent months. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since the war began in response to the deadly Hamas-led attack on Israel in October 2023.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Can the I.C.C. Prosecute Leaders of Israel, Which Is Not a Member?

      by

      The jurisdiction of the court in The Hague can extend beyond member states.The arrest warrants issued this week by the International Criminal Court for leaders of Israel and Hamas, for crimes it accuses them of committing in Gaza, offer important insights into both the extent of the court’s jurisdiction and the limits of its power.Here is what to know about the court’s legal reach, as it seeks the arrests of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel; his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant; and the chief of Hamas’s military wing, who may or may not be still alive.Why does the court claim jurisdiction in the case?More than 120 countries have joined an international treaty, the Rome Statute, and are members of the court. The court, based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, was created more than two decades ago to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and the crime of aggression.The court has accused Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant of using starvation as a weapon of war, among other charges, in the conflict with Hamas in Gaza. And it accused Muhammad Deif, a key plotter of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack in Israel, of crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, sexual violence and hostage taking.Powerful countries, including Russia, the United States and China, do not recognize the authority of the court. They have not ratified the Rome Statute, do not honor international warrants issued by the court and would not turn over their own citizens for prosecution.Neither Israel nor Gaza are members of the court. But while many nations do not recognize a State of Palestine, the court has done so since 2015, when leaders of the Palestinian Authority, which controls much of the West Bank, signed on.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Who Has the ICC Charged With War Crimes?

      by

      Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has joined a short list of sitting leaders charged by the International Criminal Court.The warrant announced against him on Thursday puts Mr. Netanyahu in the same category as Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the deposed president of Sudan, and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. As part of their membership in the court, countries are required to arrest people for whom it has issued warrants, though that obligation has not always been observed.Here is a closer look at some of the leaders for whom warrants have been issued by the court since its creation more than two decades ago.Vladimir Putin of RussiaPresident Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, left, with Maria Lvova-Belova, also subject to an I.C.C. arrest warrant, in a photo released by Russian state media.Pool photo by Mikhail MetzelThe court issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Putin in March 2023 over crimes committed during Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, including for the forcible deportation of children. A warrant was also issued for Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights.Mr. Putin has since made several international trips, including to China, which is not a member of the court. His first state visit to an I.C.C. member since the warrant was issued was in September, to Mongolia, where he received a red-carpet welcome.Omar Hassan al-Bashir of SudanThe court issued warrants in 2009 and 2010 for Mr. al-Bashir, citing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in the western region of Darfur.Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the former president of Sudan, on trial for corruption in Khartoum in 2019.Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah/ReutersThe court has also charged several other Sudanese officials, including a former defense minister, Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with crimes in Darfur.In 2015, Mr. al-Bashir traveled to an African Union summit in South Africa in defiance of the warrant, but was not arrested.Mr. al-Bashir, 80, was deposed in 2019 after three decades in power, and also faces charges in Sudan related to the 1989 coup that propelled him to power. He could receive the death sentence or life in prison on those charges if convicted.Muammar el-Qaddafi of LibyaCol. Muammar el-Qaddafi, then leader of Libya, was charged by the I.C.C. months before being killed by rebels. He is pictured here in Syria in 2008.Bryan Denton for The New York TimesThe court issued arrest warrants in 2011 for Libya’s then leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, along with one of his sons and his intelligence chief, accusing them of crimes against humanity during the first two weeks of the uprising in Libya that led to a NATO bombing campaign.Mr. Qaddafi was killed by rebels in Libya months later and never appeared before the court. His son remains at large.William Ruto of KenyaPresident William Ruto of Kenya, center, in Haiti this year. The court brought charges against him in 2011, and dropped them in 2016.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesThe court dropped a case in 2016 against William Ruto, then Kenya’s deputy president, who had been charged in 2011 with crimes against humanity and other offenses in connection with post-election violence in Kenya in 2007 and 2008. Mr. Ruto was elected president of Kenya in 2022.Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory CoastThe former president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo, was also indicted by the court in 2011 over acts committed during violence after the country’s elections in 2010.Mr. Gbagbo and another leader in Ivory Coast, Charles Blé Goudé, were acquitted in 2021.Laurent Gbagbo, the former president of Ivory Coast, in Abidjan, the capital, last year.Sia Kambou/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images More