In a world marred by highly fatal geopolitical conflicts, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is now testing its authority and global relevance. Established to prosecute war crimes, it operates as a court of last resort, stepping in when national courts are unable or unwilling to act. Recently, the ICC's actions have tried to harness the body’s potential to challenge powerful figures on the global stage, most notably through its issuance of an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin last year. Now, the court’s prosecutor has applied for warrants against five significant figures in the Israel-Hamas conflict, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. It mixed no word in saying that “notwithstanding any military goals they may have, the means Israel (a non-member state) chose to achieve them in Gaza – namely, intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to the body or health of the civilian population – are criminal”. The accused from the Hamas (a non-state actor) side include Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri and Ismail Haniyeh. The ICC believes that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity”. The casualties and inflictions on innocent populations of both Israel and Gaza are clearly visible to the world. In such a scenario, it was only apt that all the parties acknowledged the balance sought by ICC. However, the plea for arrest warrant has attracted criticism from Hamas, Israel and the US — indicating that the bloodshed in the region is being more or less intentionally aggravated to serve certain vested interests.
The court's mandate, derived from the Rome Statute, allows it to bypass national judicial systems when they fail to deliver justice. However, the ICC lacks its own enforcement mechanism and relies on the cooperation of member states to apprehend individuals it indicts. This limitation has historically hindered its effectiveness, as seen in several high-profile cases — the latest being the non-enforcement of its arrest warrant against Putin. In the present case, Netanyahu has condemned the prosecutor's actions as "disgraceful and antisemitic," while Hamas has accused the court of equating the aggressor with the victim. The application now awaits review by a pre-trial chamber of ICC judges, who will decide whether to issue arrest warrants and proceed with the case. The decision could take months, but its implications are already profound.
The ICC’s approach in the Israel-Hamas conflict showcases its commitment to holding individuals accountable for serious international crimes, regardless of their political power or status. However, the court's inability to enforce arrests without the cooperation of member states is a massive roadblock. Should the warrants be issued, Netanyahu and the Hamas leaders may face restrictions on international travel and increased diplomatic isolation, as ICC member states would be obligated to arrest and extradite them if they enter their jurisdictions. The ICC’s plea has once again cast the spotlight on the ongoing struggle for justice and the importance of maintaining a rules-based international order in a world fraught with reckless geopolitical conflicts. The need for a commitment to upholding the principles of justice and accountability in an increasingly fragmented world is more pressing than ever. Even if they plan to evade arrest under ICC’s ruling, the aggravators of war must look at their blood-stained faces in the mirror erected by the court, which is also before the world to see.