by Lawrence Wittner | Oct 13, 2026 | Global Justice, Human Rights
On October 9, only hours after the announcement of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, a former judge on the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Trump administration imposed its latest sanctions on the global judicial body. According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, “we will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate.”
When the ICC became operational in 2002, it represented a major breakthrough for the human rights groups that had campaigned for it. The new organization had the mandate to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and, after 2018, the crime of aggression. Once nations ratified the ICC’s authorizing document, the Rome Statute, they took responsibility for arresting these individuals and submitting them to the Court for trial. Designed to complement, rather than to replace, national criminal justice systems, the ICC could prosecute cases only when countries were unwilling or unable to do so. A total of 125 countries―nearly two-thirds of the world’s nations―have ratified the Rome Statute.
Since its founding, the ICC (headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands) has acted to hold individual perpetrators accountable for the world’s gravest atrocities. Its actions included opening 34 cases (some with more than one suspect), holding 17 different investigations across four continents, issuing 61 arrest warrants, and, thus far, issuing 13 convictions and 4 acquittals.
Although U.S. officials played a role in crafting the Rome Statute, they were far from enthusiastic about the statute and the ICC. President Bill Clinton did sign the statute. Even so, he refused to present it to the U.S. Senate for ratification, warning that it had “significant flaws,” including the inability to “protect U.S. officials.” Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, took a harder line. After “unsigning” the statute in 2002, he signed U.S. legislation, the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, authorizing military force to liberate any American or allied nationals the ICC held for crimes. Nevertheless, amid the “War on Terror,” the Bush administration and, later, the Obama administration, cooperated on occasion with the Court, declining to use the UN Security Council veto to block an ICC investigation and voting for Security Council referral of the situation in Libya to the Court.
During Trump’s first term as President, however, U.S. policy toward the ICC turned sharply hostile. Denouncing the ICC before the UN General Assembly, he declared that the U.S. government would “provide no support or recognition” to it. As far as the United States was concerned, he said, “the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.” Trump also imposed economic sanctions and visa restrictions on top ICC officials for any effort to investigate the behavior of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.
Russian officials, too, eventually realized that enforcement of international law threatened them. Although, initially, the Russian government signed the Rome Statute and participated constructively in the ICC, it withdrew its signature after Ukraine appealed to the ICC in 2014 and 2015 to investigate Russian war crimes in Ukraine. The ICC did initiate a preliminary inquiry that, after the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022 and Russia’s murder of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war in Bucha, expanded into a formal investigation. In 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children.
Denying any wrongdoing in Bucha, the Russian government also dismissed the charge of kidnapping as “outrageous.” Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, threatened a Russian hypersonic missile attack upon the ICC headquarters.
Meanwhile, the assault on the ICC escalated. Although U.S. President Joseph Biden scrapped Trump’s sanctions on the Court and authorized sharing information with it during investigations of Russian atrocities in Ukraine, he and numerous officials of other nations denounced the ICC’s November 2024 war crimes arrest warrant for top Israeli officials. Netanyahu assailed what he called “the antisemitic decision” of the ICC and said that Israel refused to comply with it.
With Trump’s re-election, the campaign to destroy the ICC went into high gear. In February 2025, he imposed sanctions on the ICC prosecutor. That August, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, labeling the Court “a national security threat,” added ICC judges to the sanctions list. In late 2025, a top Trump administration official told Reuters that there was “growing concern” that “the ICC will turn its attention to the president, to the vice president, to the secretary of war and others, and pursue prosecutions against them.” That was “unacceptable, and we will not allow it to happen.” The ICC, he said, had been informed that, unless it amended its founding document to ensure that it would not investigate the Republican president and his top officials, new, very punishing U.S. sanctions would be imposed on the Court.
The Russian government also ramped up its attack. In December 2025, a Russian court, retaliating for the ICC’s arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova, convicted the ICC prosecutor and eight ICC judges, in absentia, of “unlawful prosecution,” sentencing them to terms of imprisonment ranging from 3-1/2 to 15 years.
In July 2026, Rubio announced what the U.S. State Department called “a sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty.” It would “feature a whole-of-government response to systematically disable the ICC’s ability to operate” and destroy the Court “brick by brick.” That August, imposing additional sanctions on Court officials, Rubio proclaimed “our unwavering mission to protect Americans from this sham of a court.” Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Latin American and Caribbean governments to sever their ties with the ICC.
Many observers, of course, were appalled by the Trump administration’s behavior. The European Union immediately expressed its backing for the ICC, while Germany’s Foreign Minister declared that the Court made the world “safer and more just.” In a biting article, Kenneth Roth, a former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that “the administration’s real goal is to secure impunity for war crimes.”
Nevertheless, the campaign against the ICC is having a serious impact. In late July, thanks to U.S. government pressure, Venezuela and Chad announced their withdrawal from the Court’s Rome Statute. The number of withdrawals now stands at five, including Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. The latter three are ruled by military juntas allied with Russia.
As the Nobel committee warned when announcing the Peace Prize, the “judges and institutions of international law are under political attack.”
If the attack succeeds, it will produce a disaster not only for the rule of law, but for the cause of human rights.
by Olivia Gauvin | May 4, 2026 | Human Rights
Amidst yet another year of startling declines for democracies everywhere, Hungary has seemingly defied the odds. Despite being the poster boy of the far-right populist threat to European democracies, recent elections ousted Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party from 16 years of power, effectively shifting the tide on one of the starkest democratic erosions in the European Union. And yet, Orbán’s defeat does not necessarily guarantee democratic revival for his international friends and cronies, including President Donald Trump. Today, behind this celebration in Hungary lives the looming shadow of Trump’s executive overreach in the United States, with Orban’s friendship and autocratic legacy offering a roadmap to America’s sharp democratic regression.
According to the V-Dem Institute’s recently published Democracy Report, the United States is no longer considered a liberal democracy. The V-Dem Institute, an independent research organization that measures democratic growth and regression across 202 countries, now labels the U.S. as merely an ”electoral democracy.” The report details that American democracy has “fallen back to the same level as in 1965,” primarily marked by executive branch overreach. For comparison, this single year of democratic erosion under the Trump administration “took Hungary’s Viktor Orbán over four years” and “Serbia’s Aleksandar Vučić eight years.” For many Americans, the democratic institutions in 1965 were gained through grueling, consistent, and targeted civil rights activism. Such gains, according to V-Dem, have practically disappeared in America today.
These findings do not come as a surprise to many — at least they shouldn’t. V-Dem’s report emerges in the aftermath of one of the longest federal funding lapses in the Department of Homeland Security, as the United States and Israel continue to wage a deadly and costly war in Iran, while the President clamors to distract from the released FBI files that accuse him of sexually abusing trafficked minors for decades. And while free, fair, and recurring elections with universal suffrage still exist on paper, President Trump’s executive overreach has targeted “proof of citizenship for registration, federal reviewing of electronic voting machines, and restricted mail-in voting,” all without Congressional approval.
These actions have triggered dire democratic erosion on federal and state levels. In fact, on March 3rd, just two weeks before V-Dem even published its report, hundreds of voters in Texas were left unable to vote when the state changed precinct-based primary election locations and closed certain polling locations early. Furthermore, congressional oversight has been repeatedly curtailed, as the President declared war on Iran and ordered a military operation to abduct Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro — both times without prior Congressional approval. Alarming cases of violence against civilians have also gained national attention. In January 2026 alone, eight people died while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody nationwide. That same month in Minneapolis, two nonviolent U.S. citizens were publicly shot and killed by ICE agents in broad daylight. And all of this is only in the first three months of 2026.
It is difficult to defuse all the alarms currently blaring. As trans people in Kansas have their driver’s licenses revoked, and families are ripped apart during ICE raids, and postpartum patients in Texas are arrested for undergoing emergency abortion procedures, it’s clear that federal and state administrations are setting all these fires to weaken Americans. Moreover, it is necessary to recognize that such repression is strategic and targeted. For years, President Trump and autocratic affiliates have publicly touted their Project 2025, the political roadmap published by the Heritage Foundation that includes sweeping reforms to America’s political culture and institutions.
In its essence, Project 2025 seeks to overhaul the executive branch while dismantling legitimate oversight and authority between branches to consolidate power under the President. Rooted in far-right Christian conservatism and crafted by at least 140 current and former Trump staffers, Project 2025 is not an abstract ideology, but an active guide in accomplishing Trump’s authoritarian grab. If the Trump-backed SAVE Act in Congress or the Supreme Court hearing Trump’s case to end birthright citizenship tells us anything, it’s that the legislative and judicial branches risk becoming fully co-opted. And for anyone who has kept a watchful eye on the President’s executive overreach, this risk may seem a reality, as Project 2025 is already over 40 percent of the way to full implementation.
The solution to America’s rapid democratic decline cannot simply be that, in this deteriorating situation, America’s democracy will vote its way out of it. American elections are facing crises of low voter turnout and weak competition. The Cook Political Report recently shared with NPR that “more than 90% of congressional races will pretty much be decided during primary elections” in 2026. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision to reverse campaign finance restrictions, political power and private wealth have increasingly fused together in U.S. elections. The Center found that “donors who gave at least $5 million to super PACs” in the 2024 presidential race “spent more than twice as much as they did in 2020.” Combined with targeted gerrymandering practices and geographic partisan sorting, both electoral competition and the political playing field are severely weakened.
Combatting such authoritarian encroachment must go, as V-Dem recognizes, beyond the ballot box. Alongside robust societal action, responding to these dangerous threats to all facets of our democracy requires urgency and strong institutional safeguards. Now is the critical moment to join together with organizational supporters of global democracy, such as Democracy Without Borders USA and Citizens for Global Solutions, or even those in your local community, to proactively address institutional weaknesses. Simply upholding the democratic system as it exists today will not protect us from such encroachment; it will merely delay it.
by David Gallup | Oct 14, 2025 | Human Rights
More than 120 million people have been displaced from their homes due to war, climate change, political instability and oppression in the past few years, a figure that has doubled in the last decade. Millions more are living in vulnerable situations as stateless individuals, frequently unable to exercise even their most basic rights.
The population of displaced persons is larger than that of more than 220 countries and dependent territories. In other words, only 12 countries in the world have a population larger than 120 million people. As the UN High Commissioner for Refugees explains, “one out of every 67 people on the Earth” is displaced from their homes. More than “20 people are forced to flee every minute of every day” according to the International Rescue Committee. These figures do not even account for the day-to-day oppression that millions, if not billions, face but who are unable or reluctant to leave to seek a safe haven.
Most refugees in the world are either internally displaced in or are fleeing from the following countries: Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Myanmar, Palestine, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen.
As violence, war, and climate destruction affect more countries and regions of the world, the growing numbers of refugees and migrants could put a strain on social systems. National governments have responded to immigration flows in different ways, some limiting immigrants from entering their claimed territories and others welcoming newcomers. Just five countries — Iran, Turkey, Colombia, Germany, and Uganda — have welcomed almost 40% of the world’s refugees and others fleeing persecution and war.
The nation-state system has created the “refugee” and “stateless person,” as well as the severe problems associated with being considered outside the law or without “legal” status. All human beings are legal and have rights that should be respected wherever they live. Yet, due to violations of their human rights frequently perpetuated by or ignored by national governments, thousands of people flee their homes and countries every day trying to find safety, stability, and asylum.
By dividing up the world into 200 or so different countries, we have created “in” and “out” groups, with some achieving dignity, acceptance, inclusion, and rights fulfillment, and others being treated as less than human, unable to meet their basic daily needs. This disparity of treatment destabilizes society.
Why should our fellow humans have to flee to have their rights and basic needs upheld? Why are millions stuck in refugee camps with inadequate food, housing, healthcare, education, and opportunity?
To have the kind of world in which the rights reaffirmed in various declarations and treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights are fully met, we should all be able to claim, and then exercise, our rights no matter where we happen to live on the planet. Human rights and duties are not bound by territory; they are not dependent upon the nation-state in which one happens to be born or where one happens to live.
Human rights are innate and unalienable; we are born with them, and we cannot give them up. We have them simply by being human.
What if we were to claim a citizenship that inherently affirms our rights wherever we find ourselves on planet Earth?
If everyone had citizenship everywhere, statelessness would no longer exist, and only natural disasters would forcibly displace people. With world citizenship, if we do not like where we live, if we do not like the politics or the rulers, then we could choose to live somewhere else, rather than being forced to flee for our safety and livelihood.
World citizenship, as a valid and legal citizenship beyond any other status that someone may carry, would ensure that everyone has at least one citizenship which, in its inclusiveness, upholds our concomitant rights and duties.
Requiring all governments to respect world citizenship status legally is the next step – a step that will support millions of displaced persons, by ensuring that governments will begin to fulfill their obligations to respect refugees, stateless and displaced persons’ innate and unalienable rights. To promote respect for this highest citizenship status, global institutions of law, such as World Court of Human Rights and a World Parliament of the people, must be established.
World citizenship, as the highest level of allegiance, empowers us to focus on equity, justice, sustainability, unity, and harmony with each other and the Earth.
As long as we, the people of the world, allow the nation-state system to maintain the arbitrary and exclusive borders that divide humans from one another, immigration will continue to be viewed as a problem rather than as an educational, economic, political, and social opportunity. When we respect each other, our rights and duties, as world citizens, the entire earth will be a sanctuary of peace and safety for all.
by Hannah Fields | Aug 24, 2025 | Global Justice, Human Rights
From online news reports to social media platforms, the rise of authoritarianism and the surge in catastrophic armed conflicts are being broadcast in real time. The world has witnessed numerous atrocity crimes, causing many observers to speak out against the violence, but with no clear end in sight.
Sudan is experiencing one of the worst humanitarian disasters to date, with its two-year civil war resulting in more than 150,000 deaths and displacing at least 12 million people from their homes. In addition, the crisis has led to famine, mass starvation, and war crimes, including ethnic cleansing and sexual violence, all of which have received lukewarm condemnation and international neglect.
Similar circumstances prevail in Gaza as the Israeli government continues its crimes against humanity in the region. According to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2025, Israeli authorities have intentionally deprived Palestinians of access to humanitarian aid, including food and water essential for survival. They have also wounded and killed thousands of civilians, destroyed vital infrastructure such as homes and hospitals, decimated schools and camps housing displaced families, and left few or no safe spaces for those caught in their crosshairs.
More atrocities can be found in Ukraine, Haiti, Afghanistan, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and beyond. These atrocities range from war crimes to gendered violence to civilians suffering under the oppressive hand of authoritarian regimes.
As these violations mount, the international community is being called upon to demonstrate its commitment to democracy, human rights, and humanitarian action. Many nations, however, have failed to rise to the occasion or have sidestepped those commitments completely.
Even in the case of global governance institutions, such as the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court (ICC), formally established to safeguard human rights and prevent atrocity crimes, their effectiveness is often undermined by structural and political limitations.
The Security Council is frequently paralyzed in its efficacy due to the veto power of its five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), leading to inaction or slowed response to atrocity crimes. Additionally, the ICC has come under intense scrutiny, with some nations accusing the court of targeting weaker states while powerful actors escape its purview. Other nations have sanctioned the ICC for taking action against the powerful or have refused to comply with its arrest warrants.
With both institutions falling short and coming under the attack of politically motivated aggression from countries like the United States and Russia, some practitioners fear that international law is beginning to erode at its edges. For example, in June 2025, former Pakistani law minister Ahmad Irfan Aslam lamented the diminishing capacity of these institutions to deliver real-world justice, cautioning that “[n]o matter what court you approach, you are not going to get justice,” in part due to politicized state behavior.
With mounting global human rights violations and a waning faith in established global governance institutions, there remains a universal feeling of “what next?” or “where do we go from here?” Some may see no path forward.
But there is still hope to be found, especially in civil society organizations, which serve as important counterweights to the gridlocked state-driven systems.
Civil society organizations can act quickly where institutions cannot and can serve multiple roles, such as first responders, watchdogs, pressure builders, and innovators, among others. These organizations have been stepping up to fill gaps where formal aid pipelines are broken, most notably in areas such as Gaza and Sudan.
Sudanese civil society organizations, along with everyday citizens, have established Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) — grassroots networks that provide shelter, food distribution, education, and medical aid. To date, these networks have assisted over 11.5 million people and earned a nomination for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize.
In Gaza, local groups, international NGOs, and independent journalists are collaborating to document abuses, distribute aid when possible (although often with limited success), and mobilize global solidarity. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have also closely monitored the situation, publicly documenting statistics and personal testimonies of civilians, thereby raising broader awareness (and have kept that same awareness and documentation for Sudan).
In these situations, we see communities and civil society, not bureaucracies with billion-dollar budgets, fighting to save lives while countering attempts to normalize or erase suffering, whether in courts, newspapers, or public spaces.
However, activity by civil society organizations faces significant obstacles. Shrinking civic space, repressive laws, accusations of bias, and dependency on donor funding can undermine their autonomy and impact. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, 118 countries now restrict freedoms of association, assembly, or expression. In addition, activists are often harassed, jailed, or even killed, as documented in the Front Line Defenders Report 2024/2025.
Even so, civil society stands as a beacon of hope against the dysfunctional nature of institutional systems. Although civil society organizations can’t replace these systems completely, they can act as a beating heart to improve the overall circulation of these systems.
Institutions must be placed in a position where they work alongside, rather than above, civil society actors. Funding structures must shift to empower local organizations directly, reducing the crippling dependency on donor-state priorities. And civil society must have formalized roles in peace processes and accountability mechanisms. In short, it needs to be involved in institutional conversations, not left on the outside.
As human rights violations and atrocity crimes continue to unfold in full public view, the question is not whether civil society can fill the void being left by deficient institutions. The question is whether the global community will acknowledge, support, and integrate civil society actors into a truly multi-layered system of protection.
If institutions cannot act and civil society is stifled, then a future where human rights can take root at a global level is no more than a fleeting notion planted in the sand.
by Lawrence Wittner | Dec 9, 2024 | Global Justice, Human Rights
The International Criminal Court’s recent issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza has stirred up a considerable backlash. Dismissing the charges as “absurd and false,” Netanyahu announced that Israel would “not recognize the validity” of the ICC’s action. U.S. President Joe Biden denounced the arrest warrants as “outrageous,” while the French government reversed its stance after agreeing to support them.
Thanks to a vigorous campaign by human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court (ICC) became operational in 2002, with the mandate to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and, after 2018, the crime of aggression. Nations ratifying the Rome Statute, the ICC’s authorizing document, assumed responsibility for arresting these individuals and submitting them to the Court for trial. The ICC prosecutes cases only when countries are unwilling or unable to do so, for it was designed to complement, rather than replace, national criminal justice systems.
Operating with clearly delimited powers and limited funding, the ICC, headquartered at the Hague, has thus far usually taken modest but effective action to investigate, prosecute, and convict perpetrators of heinous atrocity crimes.
Although 124 nations have ratified the Rome Statute, Russia, China, the United States, India, Israel, and North Korea are not among them. Indeed, the world’s major military powers, accustomed to the privileged role in world affairs that their armed might usually afford them, have often been at odds with the ICC, for it has the potential to investigate, prosecute, and convict their government officials.
The desire of the “great powers” to safeguard themselves from the enforcement of international law is exemplified by the record of the U.S. government. Although President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000, he warned about “significant flaws in the treaty,” among them the inability to “protect US officials.” Refusing to support U.S. Senate ratification, he recommended that his successor continue this policy “until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.”
U.S. President George W. Bush “unsigned” the treaty in 2002, pressured other nations into bilateral agreements requiring them to refuse to surrender U.S. nationals to the Court, and signed the American Servicemembers Protection Act, authorizing the use of military force to liberate any Americans held for crimes by the ICC.
Although, subsequently, the Bush and Obama administrations warmed somewhat toward the Court, then engaged in prosecuting African warlords and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, President Donald Trump reverted to staunch opposition in 2018, informing the UN General Assembly that the U.S. government would not support the ICC, which he claimed had “no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.” In 2020, the Trump administration imposed economic sanctions and visa restrictions on top ICC officials for any effort to investigate the actions of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.
Like the United States, Russia initially signed the Rome treaty. It withdrew its signature, however, after Ukraine appealed to the ICC in 2014 and 2015 to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity that Russia committed in Ukraine. The ICC did launch a preliminary investigation that, after the full-scale Russian military invasion of February 2022 and the Russian murder of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war in Bucha, expanded into a formal investigation. Taking bold action in March 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children.
Having previously denied wrongdoing in Bucha, the Russian government reacted furiously to the kidnapping charge. “The very question itself is outrageous,” declared Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, and the ICC’s decisions “are insignificant for the Russian Federation.” Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of the Russian Security Council and a former Russian president, publicly threatened a Russian hypersonic missile attack upon the ICC headquarters, remarking: “Judges of the court, look carefully at the sky.” Subsequently, Moscow issued arrest warrants for top ICC officials.
Meanwhile, the United States has continued its ambivalence toward the ICC. President Joe Biden scrapped the Trump sanctions against the Court and authorized the sharing of information and funding for it in its investigations of Russian atrocities in Ukraine. But he reaffirmed “our government’s longstanding objection to the Court’s efforts to assert jurisdiction” over U.S. and Israeli officials.
The incoming Trump administration seems likely to take a much harsher line. The Republican-led House of Representatives recently passed legislation to sanction the ICC, while Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, calling the Court a “dangerous joke,” urged Congress to sanction its prosecutor, and warned U.S. allies that, “if you try to help the ICC, we’re going to sanction you.”
Given the policies of the “great powers,” are the Court’s efforts to enforce international law futile?
Leading advocates of human rights don’t think so. “This is a big day for the many victims of crimes committed by Russian forces in Ukraine,” declared Amnesty International upon learning of the Court’s arrest warrants for top Russian officials. “The ICC has made Putin a wanted man and taken its first step to end the impunity that has emboldened perpetrators in Russia’s war.” Similarly, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, stated that the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants for top Israeli officials represented “an important step toward justice for the Palestinian people. . . . Israeli generals must now think twice about proceeding with the bombing and starving of Palestinian children.”
And, indeed, the ICC’s actions have started to bear fruit. Invited to South Africa to participate in a BRICS conference, Putin canceled his visit after his hosts explained that, in light of the arrest warrant, he was no longer welcome. Also, later that year, Russian officials returned hundreds of Ukrainian children to their parents. Although the results of the ICC’s action against Israeli officials are only starting to unfold, numerous countries have promised to honor the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.
Even so, the ICC’s enforcement of international criminal justice would be considerably more effective if the major powers stopped obstructing its efforts.
by David Oughton | Sep 5, 2023 | Human Rights
The first time that many religious representatives met with each other was at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. Three of the goals of this gathering were to show “what and how many important truths the various Religions hold and teach in common;” to discover “what light Religion has to throw on the great problems of the present age;” and “to bring the nations of the earth into a more friendly fellowship, in the hope of securing permanent international peace.” The president of this Parliament proclaimed, “Henceforth the religions of the world will make war, not on each other, but on the giant evils that afflict humanity.” But after two world wars, the Holocaust and other genocides, the Cold War with massive nuclear proliferation, and over eighty wars since the end of the Second World War, many people representing many different religions realized the need for modern Parliaments in order to address our current global problems.
So in 1993 many religious leaders in Chicago organized the first modern Parliament. The other modern Parliaments were then held in Cape Town, South Africa in 1999, in Barcelona, Spain in 2004, in Melbourne, Australia in 2009, in Salt Lake City, Utah in 2015, in Toronto, Canada in 2018, virtually in 2021, and most recently back in Chicago this year from August 14 to 18. I have been fortunate to participate in all of these modern Parliaments.
The modern Parliaments are religious conventions that are open to anyone who is committed to learning about other religions and dialoging with people from other religions. Each day of the Parliament involves meetings, presentations, and panels about the beliefs and practices of different religions or about humanity’s most pressing problems: violence, human rights atrocities, poverty, racism, gender inequality, war and genocide, nuclear weapons, and environment degradation due to global warming. Leaders of various groups within Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Baha’i Faith, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, and other religious groups gave speeches in the plenary sessions about how they think these global problems can be solved.
The theme of the 2023 Parliament in Chicago was “A Call to Conscience: Defending Freedom and Human Rights.” There were over 7,000 attendees at this Parliament in Chicago, representing about 100 countries and over 200 different religious groups. There were over 100 sessions or presentations during each day of the Parliament. There were many opportunities to attend different religious services at the Parliament. Many dances and songs performed by various religious groups were also part of this global experience. Every day a large group of Sikhs offered a free meal of traditional Indian food to large groups of participants. Everyone who attended these langars was asked to follow the Sikh custom of removing one’s shoes and covering one’s head with a turban or a cloth.
There was a major emphasis at this latest Parliament on the Declaration of a Global Ethic. It was written by a group of scholars from different religions for the 1993 Parliament. The Global Ethic emphasizes a commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life, solidarity and a just economic order, tolerance and a life of truthfulness, equal rights and partnership between men and women, and sustainability and care for the Earth. These principles reflect the ancient commandments taught in some way by all of the major religions: ‘you shall not murder/kill, steal, lie, or commit adultery.’ According to the Global Ethic, people from every religion or no religion can agree on universal ethical values such as non-violent conflict resolution, honesty, human rights, labor rights, working against corruption in government and economics, working for justice, and protecting the environment.
Another document that was emphasized at recent Parliaments is the Charter for Compassion. This Charter is based on the Golden Rule that has been taught by all of the major religions in various formulations. The Charter calls upon all to restore compassion to the center of morality and religion, to reject any interpretation of scripture that breeds hatred or violence, to teach accurate and respectful information about other religions, to appreciate cultural and religious diversity, and to cultivate empathy for the sufferings of others, even those regarded as enemies. Because of the modern Parliaments, many cities around the world have declared themselves to be Compassion Cities.
There were several sessions at the 2023 Parliament that emphasized the need for a democratic world federation. One was led by Sovaida Ma’ani Ewing, a representative of the Baha’i Faith. She argued that war, climate change, mismanagement of natural resources, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and financial upheavals can best be solved by establishing collective decision-making institutions that can evolve into a democratic world federation of nation-states. Bruce Knotts, the President of Citizens for Global Solutions and a Trustee of the Parliament, was involved in many sessions in Chicago. Rebecca Shoot, the Executive Director of Citizens for Global Solutions, was a panelist on a session about how to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Many modern philosophers and religious leaders have realized that there will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. Furthermore, there will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions. I am convinced that the Parliaments of the World’s Religions are important forums for promoting world citizenship, compassion, and a global ethic for the global community. The world’s religions have a responsibility of building a secure foundation for these values so that a democratic system of enforceable world laws can outlaw war and solve our global problems
