International Law on Trial: ICC’s Karim Khan Defends Netanyahu Arrest Warrant Amid Global Scrutiny
The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has publicly defended his decision to seek an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in a high-profile interview with the BBC. His remarks signal the ICC’s unwavering commitment to holding leaders accountable for alleged war crimes, regardless of their political or international standing.
Upholding International Law
Karim Khan made it clear that his decision to pursue arrest warrants for both Israeli and Hamas leaders is based on a fundamental principle of international justice: the equal application of the law. During the interview, Khan stated that the ICC must show the world that it holds all nations to the same legal standard. “You can’t have one approach for countries where there’s support, whether it’s NATO support, European support [and] powerful countries behind you, and a different approach where you have clear jurisdiction,” Khan explained.
The arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant are tied to allegations of war crimes, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare, murder, and the intentional targeting of civilians. Khan has also requested warrants for three Hamas leaders, two of whom have since been killed. These leaders face charges of extermination, hostage-taking, rape, and torture.
Equal Accountability for All Sides
The ICC’s decision to seek warrants for leaders on both sides of the Israel-Gaza conflict is critical to its mission of equal accountability. Khan explained that issuing warrants for one side only would undermine the court’s credibility and lead to accusations of bias. In May, Khan stated that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas leaders bore criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
This balanced approach is essential to maintaining the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of the global community. “If one had applied for warrants in relation to Israeli officials and not for Gaza, [some would] say: ‘well, this is an obscenity,’” Khan told the BBC. His insistence on fairness demonstrates the ICC’s dedication to impartial justice.
Political Pressure and Global Criticism
Despite widespread criticism, including from US President Joe Biden, who called the arrest warrants against Israeli leaders “outrageous,” Khan remains firm in his belief that the ICC must follow the evidence. “I have one advantage at least. Hopefully even they will concede I’ve seen the evidence. They haven’t,” Khan said during the interview, responding to his critics.
Khan also revealed that he has faced pressure from world leaders to refrain from issuing the warrants. “Several leaders and others told me and advised me and cautioned me,” he admitted. Yet, despite this external pressure, Khan has remained resolute in his commitment to international justice, emphasizing that the ICC’s role is to uphold the law without fear or favor.
Broader Implications: The Case of Putin
The ICC’s actions regarding Netanyahu and Gallant have broader implications for global justice. During the interview, Khan drew parallels between the Netanyahu case and the ICC’s arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is wanted for war crimes related to the deportation of Ukrainian children. Khan expressed confidence that Putin, like other world leaders before him, would eventually face justice. “Nothing is permanent. Life is transitory. And every political life ends in failure,” he remarked.
Khan’s optimism comes despite recent events, such as Putin’s visit to Mongolia, an ICC signatory state, where he was not arrested. Khan’s belief that Putin will ultimately “see the inside of a courtroom” reflects his broader view that the ICC is a long-term mechanism for justice, even if immediate results are not always evident.
