Leader

NST Leader: ICC, a court for some?

THE international legal system is the last place we would expect racism to rear its ugly head. But it is doing so in the war crimes investigation in Ukraine.

On Feb 28, just four days after Russia invaded Ukraine, International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan opened a formal inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. We have not seen the ICC act with such speed in a non-European country.

There is more. On March 24, British-born Khan was reported by Reuters as addressing a meeting of a British-led coalition in The Hague, made up of bigwigs, including justice ministers and prosecutors from 38 countries that have offered the ICC financial, legal and military assistance.

Military assistance? Did we get it right? Yes, unless Reuters got it wrong. Never was the ICC offered such assistance in such speed and scale as in the Ukraine investigation.

One of the weaknesses of the international legal system, unlike the municipal one, is the lack of enforcement. Now that the court has military backing, it may have just acquired enforcement powers.

Again a first for the ICC. We are sure British forces are going to be lead enforcers, but don't be surprised if North Atlantic Treaty Organisation men in battle fatigues are there, too.

The latest news out of Germany is that the European Union has thrown its support behind the ICC and is helping investigate war crimes in Ukraine.

Is it 38, 40 or 60 Western countries now pouring money, men and arms defending the legal rights of Ukraine? It is no accident that Ukraine is in Europe.

Do not get us wrong. Ukraine is being torn asunder. Civilians are being killed. War crimes there must be investigated and the criminals brought to justice.

No, we aren't questioning this. What we are questioning is why is there a two-tier international legal system. One for the Europeans and another for the rest.

An earnest advocate of the ICC, Rebecca Hamilton, put it thus to Al Jazeera: "While Ukraine is deserving of the attention it is getting, the notion that funds are available to the ICC only when there's a crisis in Europe is offensive." Hamilton is right.

If states want to support the work of the court, it's got to be a court for everybody. It sure is a case of structural racism of the international system. And everyone is getting to see it.

We repeat the note of caution that Mark Kersten, a Fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, issues to the ICC in his Al Jazeera op-ed piece: "States often use voluntary funding to control the priorities and objectives of international organisations. It is the duty of the ICC and chief prosecutor Khan, in particular, to protect the institution's impartiality and independence."

"It would be wise," Kersten continues, "for the prosecutor to contemplate what impression an embrace of Western resources earmarked for Ukraine will make on victims and survivors in situations where the geopolitical interests of the West are less clear or even opposed to accountability." Like in Palestine.

Those who stand on the side of justice remember how the ICC prosecutor dropped an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by American forces as a result of warnings issued by Washington. We put it to the ICC. Give this Leader a deep think.

Most Popular
Related Article
Says Stories