by Jerry Tetalman | Mar 7, 2025 | Disarmament
The true challenge of our time is to bring rules, law, and democracy to the chaos of international relations. If we want to overcome the existential threats of nuclear weapons and abolish war, we will need a world governing body that is more democratic and empowered to act than the current United Nations.
The organized murder of one group of humans by another group of humans is called war. We live in a world where the vilest of crimes, which are punished with severe consequences within most societies, are somehow acceptable when committed as part of war. War has been an integral part of human history and, in the nuclear age, is the most imminent threat to our continued existence. As modern, civilized people, most of us find war abhorrent, but few of us call for the abolition of war or understand why war still exists in the contemporary world.
War exists because human society has been organized around the concept of the in-group and the out-group. The in-group could be a tribe, city, nation, or group of nations. The out-group may be tolerated, but in many instances, it is considered the enemy. The question of our time is, can we create a new story where humanity is the in-group? Can we civilize a lawless world by creating a basic system of enforceable global law?
Wars between countries continue because countries exist in relative anarchy at the international level. We have international law based on treaties that help maintain order, but this system is not an actual law, as it is voluntary. Valid law has consequences and enforcement mechanisms if one breaks the law. At the international level, we still live and die by the law of the jungle, which is “might makes right.”
The countries of the European Union have found peace after thousands of years of warfare and two world wars by trading away a piece of sovereignty to form a collective. They now resolve disputes in the European Union’s parliament and courts. The world’s countries can find peace by building an international union of nations and creating a similar system of courts and a global parliament.
The United Nations has a membership of almost all the countries on earth, and this in itself is an impressive accomplishment in that it creates an inclusive forum for discussion of international problems. Unfortunately, the UN lacks democratic standards and is flawed by its outdated design, and thus ineffective in addressing the major global security issues of our day. International security issues are dealt with in the UN by the Security Council and, in particular, the five permanent members who were the victors of World War II: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Russian Federation, and the People’s Republic of China. They each have a veto, allowing a single country to block the action called for by the majority. The General Assembly can pass resolutions, but they constitute no more than recommendations. The United Nations also suffers from a democratic deficit, as each member country has one vote regardless of population.
We are at a critical moment in human history. International laws exist, but they are often not enforceable. Force and military might still rule the world in terms of global affairs.
Fortunately, a US organization, Citizens for Global Solutions – like the World Federalist Movement, which brings together organizations with a similar orientation around the globe — works to create a world ruled by law rather than force to build the legal institutions necessary for peace and to abolish war. Citizens for Global Solutions is working to enhance the jurisdiction and use of the International Court of Justice to resolve disputes without violence in a campaign called Law, not War.
The challenge of our time is to abolish war and create the global institutions of law necessary to resolve disputes through legal, rather than lethal means.
by Lawrence Wittner | Mar 6, 2025 | Global Cooperation
The recent whirlwind of the incoming United States (U.S.) administration’s foreign policy measures―many reversing those of the previous administration―illustrates the fact that Americans have sharply different opinions about their relationship to other nations.
The current president’s approach―which he has labeled “America First”―is clear enough. He has blocked U.S. humanitarian assistance abroad by shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development, twice pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, and scrapped numerous nuclear arms control and disarmament accords (including the Iran nuclear agreement, the Open Skies Treaty, and the INF Treaty). Taking a hard line against the foreign-born for their alleged criminality and “poisoning the blood” of Americans, he has suspended refugee asylum in the United States and begun the process of arresting and deporting 11 million migrants.
This vision of America’s role in the world relies upon a vast U.S. military buildup and tariff wars to coerce other nations into line with his aims. Indeed, he has even blatantly championed old-fashioned imperialist expansion by calling for annexing Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, and Gaza―the latter to be purged of its Palestinian population. Not surprisingly, his administration has shown particular contempt for international organizations, promising a crackdown on the United Nations and sanctioning the International Criminal Court and its supporters. Recently, he has withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council.
Although it’s doubtful that this mixture of strident nationalism and xenophobia benefits Americans, it does have deep roots in American history. In the nineteenth century, the fledgling U.S. government acquired vast new continental territories thanks to wars and treaties at the expense of indigenous peoples. The largest of these land-grabs included the Mexican War and countless Indian wars. Overseas expansion surged during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when the U.S. government colonized and annexed the Philippines, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico and, also, militarily intervened in Mexico, the Caribbean nations, South America, and China. Although the rapidly-growing United States remained open to immigrants during its first century, restrictions on Asian immigrants began in the late nineteenth century. And a discriminatory National Origins Quota System―designed to drastically reduce immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe―was put into place in the early twentieth century.
In the aftermath of World War I, what became known as “isolationism” swept through the United States, ultimately leading the U.S. government to reject membership in the League of Nations and the World Court, as well as to adopt a policy of “appeasement” of the fascist nations, then busy conquering portions of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the U.S. government into World War II and produced growing respect for international law, the U.S. government, during the Cold War years, insisted upon maintaining the world’s mightiest military establishment. Pursuing what was termed “the national interest,” it also engaged in numerous unilateral ventures, including toppling foreign government and waging brutal, vastly destructive wars (such as the one in Vietnam).
But this is only part of the story, for there was always another America―one recognizing that it was just and necessary to move nations beyond national selfishness to global cooperation. This tendency might be called “Global Community.”
After all, the U.S. government did play a major role in initiating the League of Nations and, ultimately, in moving beyond isolationism (and its leading advocate, the America First Committee) and defeating the fascist powers. It also played a very significant part in establishing the United Nations, appropriately headquartered in America’s largest city. Just as, in the years before World War II, the American government terminated its occupation regimes in Caribbean nations, so, after the war, it ended its postwar occupation regimes in European and Asian nations. To aid in postwar European recovery, it created the Marshall Plan, a massive economic aid program that played a key role in reviving war-torn Western Europe. After the establishment of the United Nations, the U.S. government became its leading funder, promoting the international organization’s worldwide international security, humanitarian, and health programs.
Nor was this all. In the postwar years, the U.S. government supported the termination of colonial regimes by the European colonial powers that had ruled much of Africa and Asia, thereby dramatically increasing the number of independent nations. Meanwhile, it swept away the previous U.S. discriminatory immigration system, resulting in a more multicultural society. Although the U.S. government continued to engage in great power confrontation during the Cold War, it eventually accepted that conflict’s peaceful termination through international agreements. These included very significant nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties―treaties that did not give primacy to America or any other country. Some years later, the Obama administration followed up by pressing, albeit unsuccessfully, for the creation of a nuclear weapons-free world. Furthermore, determined to tackle the growing global climate crisis, it signed the Paris climate accord.
How did it happen that these two quite different approaches to the world developed in the policies of the same nation?
The answer appears to lie in the fact that America’s relationship to the world has always been contested terrain. From the Know Nothings, to the Ku Klux Klan, to the current nativist movement, the United States has always contained plenty of people hostile to foreigners and celebrating a mythical “Americanism.” And there have also been plenty of people―from the League of Universal Brotherhood, to the United Nations Association, to Citizens for Global Solutions―who have argued that we’re all in this together.
At present, the America Firsters are clearly in control of the U.S. government. But, of course, the future is never predictable. Indeed, it’s quite possible that there will be a revival of the impetus to build a global community—one that can address the world’s problems and even, perhaps, overcome them.
That would be a great day for both America and the world.
by Lawrence Wittner | Feb 12, 2025 | Disarmament
Late January of this year will mark the first anniversary of the entry into force of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This momentous international agreement, the result of a lengthy struggle by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and by many non-nuclear nations, bans developing, testing, producing, acquiring, possessing, stockpiling, and threatening to use nuclear weapons. Adopted by an overwhelming vote of the official representatives of the world’s nations at a UN conference in July 2017, the treaty was subsequently signed by 86 nations. It received the required 50 national ratifications by late October 2020, and, on January 22, 2021, became international law.
Right from the start, the world’s nine nuclear powers—the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—expressed their opposition to such a treaty. They pressed other nations to boycott the crucial 2017 UN conference and refused to attend it when it occurred. Indeed, three of them (the United States, Britain, and France) issued a statement declaring that they would never ratify the treaty. Not surprisingly, then, none of the nuclear powers has signed the agreement or indicated any sympathy for it.
Treaty Momentum During 2021
Even so, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has acquired considerable momentum over the past year. During that time, an additional nine nations ratified it, thus becoming parties to the treaty. And dozens more, having signed it, are expected to ratify it in the near future. Furthermore, the governments of two NATO nations, Norway and Germany, have broken free from the U.S. government’s oppositional stance to the treaty and agreed to attend the first meeting of the countries that are parties to it.
In nations where public opinion on the treaty has been examined, the international agreement enjoys considerable support. YouGov opinion polls in five NATO countries in Europe show overwhelming backing and very little opposition, with the same true in Iceland, another NATO participant. Polling has also revealed large majorities in favor of the treaty in Japan, Canada, and Australia.
In the United States, where most of the mainstream communications media have not deigned to mention the treaty, it remains a well-kept secret. Even so, although a 2019 YouGov poll about it drew a large “Don’t Know” response, treaty support still outweighed opposition by 49 to 32 percent. Moreover, when the U.S. Conference of Mayors, representing 1,400 U.S. cities, met in August 2021, the gathering unanimously approved a resolution praising the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Meanwhile, a variety of institutions, recognizing that nuclear weapons are now illegal under international law, have begun to change their investment policies. In September 2021, Lansforsakringar, a Swedish insurance company with assets of over $46 billion, cited the treaty as a major reason to avoid investing in companies producing nuclear weapons. In December, the New York City Council adopted a resolution telling the city comptroller to remove investments from the city’s $250 billion pension fund from companies producing or maintaining these weapons of mass destruction. According to ICAN, 127 financial institutions stopped investing in nuclear weapons companies during 2021.
The Nuclear Powers Accelerate Their Arms Race
Despite this impressive display of respect for the landmark agreement, the nine nuclear powers have not only continued to oppose it, but have accelerated their nuclear arms race. Having cast off the constraints of most nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements of the past, they are all busy either developing or deploying new nuclear weapons systems or have announced their intention to do so.
In this process of nuclear “modernization,” as it is politely termed, they are building newly-designed nuclear weapons of increasing accuracy and efficiency. These include hypersonic missiles, which travel at five times the speed of sound and are better able than their predecessors to evade missile defenses. Reportedly, hypersonic missiles have already been developed by Russia and China. The United States is currently scrambling to build them, as well, with the usual corporate weapons contractors eager to oblige.
When it comes to “modernization” of its entire nuclear weapons complex, the U.S. government probably has the lead. During the Obama administration, it embarked on a massive project designed to refurbish U.S. nuclear production facilities, enhance existing nuclear weapons, and build new ones. This enormous nuclear venture accelerated during the Trump administration and continues today, with a total cost estimated to ultimately top $1.5 trillion.
Although there remain some gestures toward nuclear arms control—such as the agreement between U.S. president Joe Biden and Russian president Vladimir Putin to extend the New Start Treaty—the nuclear powers are now giving a much higher priority to the nuclear arms race.
The current build-up of their nuclear arsenals is particularly dangerous at this time of rising conflict among them. The U.S. and Russian governments almost certainly don’t want a nuclear war over Ukraine, but they could easily slip into one. The same is true in the case of the heightening confrontation between the Chinese and U.S. governments over Taiwan and the islands in the South China Sea. And what will happen when nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan fight yet another war, or when nuclear-armed national leaders like Kim Jong-un and a possibly re-elected Donald Trump start trading insults again about their countries’ nuclear might?
What Will the Future Bring?
At present, this standoff between the nuclear nations, enamored with winning their global power struggles, and the non-nuclear nations, aghast at the terrible danger of nuclear war, seems likely to persist, resulting in the continuation of the world’s long nuclear nightmare.
In this context, the most promising course of action for people interested in human survival might well lie in a popular mobilization to compel the nuclear nations to accept the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and, more broadly, to accept a restrained role in a cooperatively-governed world.
Photo Credit: ICAN | Darren Ornitz
by Lawrence Wittner | Jan 12, 2025 | Global Justice
In today’s world of widespread poverty and unprecedented wealth, how about raising the wages of the most poorly-paid workers?
This October, the World Bank reported that “8.5 percent of the global population―almost 700 million people―live today on less than $2.15 per day,” while “44 percent of the global population―around 3.5 billion people―live today on less than $6.85 per day.” Meanwhile, “global poverty reduction has slowed to a near standstill.”
In early 2024, the charity group Oxfam International noted that, since 2020, “148 top corporations made $1.8 trillion in profit, 52 percent up on 3-year average, and dished out huge payouts to rich shareholders.” During this same period, the world’s five wealthiest men “more than doubled their fortunes from $405 billion to $869 billion,” an increase of $14 million per hour. As corporate elites gathered in Davos for a chat about the world economy, ten corporations alone were worth $10.2 trillion, more than the GDPs of all the countries in Africa and Latin America combined.
The world’s vast economic inequality “is no accident,” concluded a top Oxfam official. “The billionaire class is ensuring corporations deliver more wealth to them at the expense of everyone else.”
Although inequalities in income and wealth have existed throughout much of human history, they have been softened somewhat by a variety of factors, including labor unions and―in modern times―minimum wage laws. Designed to provide workers with a basic standard of living, these laws create a floor below which wages are not allowed to sink. In 1894, New Zealand became the first nation to enact a minimum wage law, and―pressured by the labor movement and public opinion―other countries (including the United States in 1938) followed its lead. Today, more than 90 percent of the world’s nations have some kind of minimum wage law in effect.
These minimum wage laws have had very positive effects upon the lives of workers. Most notably, they lifted large numbers of wage earners out of poverty. In addition, they undermined the business practice of slashing wages (and thus reducing production costs) to increase profit margins or to cut prices and grab a larger share of the market.
Even so, the growth of multinational corporations provided businesses with opportunities to slip past these national laws and dramatically reduce their labor costs by moving production of goods and services to low-wage nations. This corporate offshoring of jobs and infrastructure gathered steam in the mid-20th century. Initially, multinational corporations focused on outsourcing low-skilled or unskilled manufacturing jobs, which had a negative impact on employment and wages in advanced industrial nations. In the 21st century, however, the outsourcing of skilled jobs, particularly in financial management and IT operations, rose dramatically. After all, from the standpoint of enhancing corporate profits, it made good sense to replace an American IT worker with an Indian IT worker at 13 percent the cost. The result was an accelerating race to the bottom.
In the United States, this export of formerly good-paying jobs to low-wage, impoverished countries―combined with “free trade” agreements, a corporate and government assault on unions, and conservative obstruction of any raise in the pathetically low federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour)―produced a disaster. The share of private sector goods-producing jobs at high wages shrank, since the 1960s, from 42 to 17 percent. Increasingly, U.S. jobs were located in the low-paid service sector. Not surprisingly, by 2023 an estimated 43 million Americans lived in poverty, while another 49 million lived just above the official poverty line. Little wonder that, in this nation and many others caught up in corporate globalization, there was an alarming rise of rightwing demagogues playing on economic grievances, popular hatreds, and fears.
If, therefore, wages in underdeveloped nations and in advanced industrial nations are not keeping pace with the vast accumulation of capital by the world’s wealthiest people and their corporations, one way to counter this situation is to move beyond the disintegrating patchwork of wage floor efforts by individual nations and develop a global minimum wage.
Such a wage could take a variety of forms. The most egalitarian involves a minimum wage level that would be the same in all nations. Unfortunately, though, given the vast variation among countries in wealth and current wages, this does not seem practical. In Luxembourg, for example, the average yearly per capita purchasing power is 316 times that of South Sudan. But other options are more viable, including basing the minimum wage on a percentage of the national median wage or on a more complex measurement accounting for the cost of living and national living standards.
Over the past decade and more, prominent economists and other specialists have made the case for a global minimum wage, as have a variety of organizations. For an appropriate entity to establish it, they have usually pointed to the International Labour Organization, a UN agency that has long worked to set international labor standards.
The advantages of a global minimum wage are clear.
It would lift billions of people out of poverty, thus enabling them to lead far better lives.
It would reduce the corporate incentive for offshoring by limiting the ability of multinational corporations to obtain cheap labor abroad.
By keeping jobs in the home country, it would aid unions in wealthy nations to retain their memberships and provide protection against “corporate blackmail”―the management demand that unions either accept contract concessions or get ready for the shift of corporate jobs and production overseas.
By raising wages in impoverished countries, it would reduce the poverty-driven mass migration from these nations and, thereby, deprive rightwing demagogues in wealthier countries of one of their most potent issues.
Of course, higher labor costs at home and abroad would reduce corporate profits and limit the growth of billionaires’ wealth and power. But wouldn’t these also be positive developments?
by Sovaida Maani Ewing | Dec 12, 2024 | Climate Justice
The ability to see and accept things as they are is difficult for us humans. We tend to repeat behaviors that fail to yield the results we want, lulling ourselves into the belief that this time the outcome will somehow be different. We mask our repeated endeavors as exercises in optimism even when we’re deeply mired in denial. Yet, accepting reality as it is, including acknowledging moments of failure, is a prerequisite for making meaningful change. One of the stark realities we must face as a global community is that the system we established in 1992 in the international treaty known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) which resulted in regular meetings of the state parties known as COPs (conference of the parties) is simply inadequate to the task. This inadequacy applies in spades to the 21st COP which resulted in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement that aimed to keep climate change from wreaking calamitous effects on our way of life and the environment. The system as crafted simply cannot deliver on its promises. More specifically, the goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is already beyond our grasp and the goal of keeping such a rise to well below 2 degrees is a chimera. For those who may have had doubts about the severity of the threat of climate change, the bitter reality of the historically unprecedented rise in global temperatures in the form of unprecedented droughts, floods, sea-level rise, destructive storms, wildfires, and catastrophic loss of biodiversity, is already with us.
The current system is replete with fatal flaws that include the following: First, a reliance on voluntary pledges (or “nationally determined contributions” as they are termed in the Paris Agreement) representing efforts by each country to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change, simply does not work. Even if all the countries that signed on to the Paris Agreement were to fulfill the pledges they have given, current reports estimate that temperatures likely will still rise beyond the 2 degree Celsius outer limit we have set ourselves. As it stands, however, many countries are nowhere near fulfilling their pledges, putting us on the pathway to a rise in temperatures above pre-industrial levels ranging between 2.5 – 2.9 degrees Celsius by 2100. More importantly, there is no mechanism for holding nations to their promises. The system is therefore unfit for purpose and must be discarded in favor of an effective one.
Second, collective funding for activities like mitigation and adaptation and even research and development into alternative clean energy sources has proven challenging and generally unsuccessful, with poorer developing countries generally finding themselves supplicating, cap in hand, while richer countries respond by ducking and doing whatever it takes to limit their exposure.
Third, the rules governing the COPs require that all decisions be taken by consensus, effectively granting each member country the right to veto any agreement. The result is paralysis or at best agreement based on the lowest common denominator.
Given the degree to which the current COP system is flawed, it is time for us to find an alternative system to combat climate change that includes at its heart an effective pathway to reducing emissions. What humanity desperately needs at this stage in its collective development is a collective decision-making institution in the form of a World Legislature or World Parliament that is democratically elected by the people of the world and equipped with the authority to pass binding international laws in areas where global challenges like climate change demand global solutions. Such a global body should be able, for instance, to pass binding legislation requiring a scheduled universal phase-down of the quantities of fossil fuel that nations can burn. It should also be empowered to levy limited taxes on each member of the global community. Just as we pay state and national taxes, so too, we could be required to pay a modicum of international taxes to defray the costs of meeting our global needs and solving our global challenges. Moreover, decisions of the World Legislature should be based on a two-thirds or other majority vote, rather than requiring unanimity. Last, but by no means least, it should have an enforcement mechanism to ensure that nations comply with the laws it passes.
In sum, it is time to courageously and humbly acknowledge that our COP system does not work and to boldly reimagine a new system for stemming global warming. In this endeavor we would do well to heed the following words of Robert Schuman uttered in 1950: “World peace cannot be safeguarded without creative efforts commensurate with the dangers that threaten it.”
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.
