Every week, The WorldPost asks an expert to shed light on a topic driving headlines around the world. Today, we speak with Dr. Sarah Nouwen on what Palestinian membership means for the International Criminal Court, and the nature of international law.
Founded in 1998 and situated in The Hague, the ICC is held to be the international community’s last resort for bringing to justice those who commit crimes against humanity. On New Year’s Eve 2014, President Mahmoud Abbas signed the papers officially allowing Palestinians to join the court, with the intent to bring claims against Israel.
The move was met with harsh criticism from the U.S. and Israel, which would only grow more intense when the ICC announced on Jan. 16 that it was launching an examination into possible war crimes in Palestinian territories.
To understand why this is such an important event, as well as how the wheels of justice turn at the ICC, The WorldPost spoke with international legal expert Dr. Sarah Nouwen. A lecturer in law at the University of Cambridge, Nouwen is the author of the book Complementarity in the Line of Fire: The Catalysing Effect of the International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan.
What would you say is the likelihood that Israelis or Palestinians would actually be prosecuted?
That question requires looking far into the future. Right now the ICC has only opened a preliminary examination; it has not opened an investigation yet. What the court does during a preliminary examination is first look at whether there is reason to believe that crimes have been committed that fall within its jurisdiction: substantive, temporal, personal and territorial.
–
How do you assess the court’s ability to promote peace building in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Does this differ from how it has attempted promote peace building in Africa?
It’s a fascinating question. Here you clearly see the double standards that the West has applied with respect to the role of the ICC in political conflicts. In that sense, the Palestinian membership of the ICC is a fundamental moment for a reevaluation for the role of international criminal law in political conflict. In respect to Africa, the West and particularly Europe has taken the view that there can be no peace without justice. They hold that international criminal justice must be done, even if the consequence is that a peace process may fall apart. With respect to Israel-Palestine, however, they argue that a political solution is required and that the ICC will not help.
Similarly, African states have been denied development aid by the EU if they did not support the ICC. With respect to Palestine, you see the opposite. The U.S. has said that they would withhold funding from Palestine if it accedes to the Rome Statute.
So with respect to some countries it was argued that international criminal justice must be applied irrespective of the consequences, whereas with respect to Israel-Palestine it was argued a political solution is required, not international criminal law. This is the moment for a thorough and empirical reevaluation of the role of international criminal law in the resolution of political conflicts.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
