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 Lawrence Wittner | Sep 18, 2024 | Global Justice
Are the nations of the world doomed to go on fighting the brutal, horrifying wars that have long characterized human history?
We might well wonder about that as we watch, aghast, while Israeli armed forces slaughter thousands of Palestinian civilians, Russian military might relentlessly pounds Ukrainian towns and cities into rubble, and new, bloody wars erupt in numerous other lands.
Why does such widespread destruction and human suffering persist in the modern, ostensibly “civilized,” world?
A variety of explanations have been advanced. Some observers point to capitalism, others blame dictatorial rule, while still others place the onus on xenophobia, religious differences, racism, and toxic masculinity.
Each of these factors has some weight. Certainly greed, authoritarian arrogance, inflamed nationalism, religious and racial animosities, and male violence have played some role in dividing people and, thereby, fostering wars among them over the course of history.
But are these factors sufficient to explain the stubborn persistence of war? After all, wars existed long before the advent of capitalism and, furthermore, since then, non-capitalist (for example, Communist) nations have repeatedly waged wars, even against one another. Similarly, democratic nations have plunged regularly into numerous wars, some against their fellow democracies. Moreover, even countries whose populations have friendly ties, have the same racial composition and religion, and have taken major strides toward gender equality (including admission of women to the armed forces and top posts in government) seem quite willing to prepare for and engage in war with each other.
Something is clearly missing from these explanations of widespread international violence―something fundamental. Could it be the structure of international relations?
International relations specialists have long argued that the driving force behind international war is global anarchy. Humanity, like war, has existed for thousands of years. But, although humans have gradually created governments to establish effective laws regulating behavior within their territories―regions, cities, states, and, ultimately, nations―they have failed to do so for the world. Thus, on the global level, nations have been left largely to their own devices. The resulting situation resembles the American Wild West, characterized by the absence of law enforcement and the prevalence of heavily armed gangs.
For centuries, scholars have pointed to the need for creating transnational structures to end this global nightmare. The theologian and diplomat Hugo Grotius helped develop the concept of international law, while writers such as Dante Alighieri, Immanuel Kant, and H.G. Wells promoted the idea of global governance.
After the atomic bombing of Japan and the ensuing scramble for nuclear weapons starkly revealed the peril of nuclear annihilation, the call for a full-scale transformation of international relations became even sharper. Albert Einstein, the chair of the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, stated bluntly: “Mankind’s desire for peace can be realized only by the creation of a world government.”
Norman Cousins, editor of one of America’s major magazines of the era (the Saturday Review), played a key role in channeling Einstein’s call into a postwar campaign for a global federation of nations. “The only security for Americans today, or for any people,” Cousins contended, is “a system of world order that enables nations to retain sovereignty over their own cultures and institutions but that creates a workable authority for regulating the behavior of nations in their relationships with one another.” Cousins served as president of United World Federalists (which morphed into the World Federalist Association and, eventually, Citizens for Global Solutions), the U.S. member organization of the World Federalist Movement.
Benjamin Ferencz, the U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of the late 1940s, became an important popularizer of this world federalist approach. In his widely-read book, PlanetHood, Ferencz told Americans that, in the United States, “we have four layers of government: city, county, state, and national,” created “to avoid anarchy within our nation.” Thus, adding “one more layer of government will enable us to have an abundant future on this planet.” Indeed, “international governance―something like a United Nations of the World―will rescue us from our deadly predicament.”
Critics, of course, might argue that a United Nations already exists, and has often proved unable to prevent the recurrence of war. But Ferencz’s answer―and, usually, the answer of the world federalist movement―was that, although the United Nations had significant accomplishments to its credit, the UN Charter “was deliberately made weak” by the major powers. As a result, it “did not give the United Nations the binding strength needed to get rid of international lawlessness.” Ultimately, “the only way to permanently solve the problem of war is to replace the Law of Force with the Force of Law.” This perspective led, in recent years, to the establishment of the LAW not War campaign, designed to promote the universality of the International Court of Justice.
World federalists can also point to a dramatic decline in war when independent nations accepted limitations on their sovereignty. In the late eighteenth century, as 13 British North American colonies gained their independence, they could have followed the usual global pattern of war with one another. But, instead, they gradually created a federal union (the United States) and fought only one war within their ranks during the following 235 years. Similarly, although European nations had undergone centuries of war with each other before they went at it again in World War II, members of the European Union, formed in the aftermath of that devastating war (and now encompassing 27 nations), succeeded in ending war among them.
The issue of transcending the ages-old practice of international war certainly remains relevant today. Indeed, the United Nations is moving forward with plans for a Summit of the Future in late September. Designed to address “global governance,” among other issues, the Summit provides yet another opportunity for nations to empower the world organization to maintain international peace through the enforcement of world law.
Is that goal realistic? Perhaps so, perhaps not. But how realistic is it to continue the anarchy of nations, which today threatens universal death and destruction?
Image source: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/episodes/in-memoriam-benjamin-b-ferencz/
by Drea Bergman | Apr 15, 2023 | Global Justice
The little known story of how American public outrage capitulated German lawmakers to compensate Polish survivors of Ravensbrück
With the passing of Benjamin Ferencz on April 7, humanity lost a tireless advocate for justice, world law, and human rights. Ben was a long-time CGS supporter, served as a National Council Advisor, and a world federalist.
On November 11, 2018, Citizens for Global Solutions honoured Ben with the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award which recognized his substantial contributions to world federation and improving global governance.
The following excerpt is Ben speaking at the awards ceremony about his friendship with Norman Cousins as well as their work ensuring compensation for the Ravensbrück survivors.
Ben’s Reflections on Receiving the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award:
A number of the Polish Catholic girls who were interned in the Ravensbrück Concentration Camp, and there they were subjected to a series of medical experiments by the Nazi troops in order to test out whether various glass in the wounds and sand in the wounds and other horrible experiments–how long will it take to cure them and what it took not to cure them.
And this is the subject of one of the subsequent Nuremberg trials, known as the Medical Case, which was one of the first cases after the trial by the International Military Tribunal against Göring.
Caroline Ferriday who is lady of some means and she had arranged to visit a number of the Polish Catholic girls who were interned in the Ravensbrück Concentration camp and there they were subjected to a series of medical experiments by the Nazi troops in order to test out whether the various glass in the wounds and sand in the wounds and- other other horrible experiments – how long will it take to cure them on what it took to not cure them and this is the subject of one of the subsequent Nuremberg trials, known as the Medical Case, was one of the first cases after the trial by the International Military Tribunal against Göring.
So, she was aware of this and she went to Norman Cousins and said, “Well, you are taking care of this Hiroshima Maidens, can’t you do the same for these Ravensbrück lapins?” Because lapins is French for “rabbits” or “guinea pigs” and were being used as human guinea pigs. And he agreed to try and help her and he set up a small committee. I was the pro bono counsel to that Committee because I negotiated with the German government about compensation for all of the Nazi persecution. And so, she visited me and I said I would try to get the German governments to agree, but it would be difficult because we had a complicated indemnification law. And it had no provision or made for compensate anybody in Poland and the Germans took a very harsh position.
Saying, look, we were at war with this country, they were killing our soldiers there we’re not going to compensate anybody our country with which we were at war. And the Committee took a dim view of that.
I met with the German Ambassador in Washington, and I said, “Look this is an exceptional case.” He said, “I’m sorry this is built with the legislature which we’ve done as much we tend to do.”
Whereupon the Committee arranged with Pan Am to fill up a plane with the ladies that we call the ‘Ladies from Ravensbrück’ and bring them to New York. And there we arranged for a ceremony to take place on the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral where they were greeted by the bishop or whoever it was saying, “you know, women of Ravensbrück, look what terrible things the Nazis did to you, and they refuse to compensate you for the lapins!” And so, we got a lot of publicity and the German Ambassador, whom I had pretty good relations, he sent me a copy of the cable that he had sent to Bonn [Germany].
Saying this is not a financial problem, this is a political problem so get them out of here. They’re going to go, we had arranged this visit, all the Senators who had a Polish constituency in the Senate to welcome the girls from Poland saying, oh look how terribly they were treated by the Nazis, and they won’t compensate them for anything, any come with you excuses and so on.
So, we’re going to put high pressure on and the Germans had to capitulate. And I was present in Bonn when the Cabinet called a Special Meeting on this question, whether they could expand their laws. And they all said, “make sure that that Ferencz guy doesn’t get involved in this thing. Anyway, he’s just making it hard until we don’t want anything to do with him.” I said that’s fine! But would you deal with the Red Cross, the International Committee of the Red Cross? And they agreed.
So, I flew to Geneva and set up arrangements whereby the German Government agreed to pay a fixed sum agreement. Norman Cousins was really the leader of the team meetings that took place in his office usually and he was fully involved, and he was writing about it all the time. So, it was largely as a result of his efforts that many people would not have been compensated.
We created whole system and Norman was really the leader of this and our meetings took place in his office, and he was fully involved, and he was writing about it all the time. So, it was largely as a result of his efforts that many people would not have been compensated, did receive compensation for some terrible wounds taken on deliberately by the Nazi regime. So, Norman and I were good friends, and I followed his career. When he was finally ill, and I recognized that he extended his own life expectancy by adopting of philosophy of making jokes and trying to keep up with your humor and everything he did certainly extended his life and he was a great man. I’m very honored to receive any award which bears his name.
Benjamin Ferencz is remembered for being a lead investigator in the Nuremberg Trials where all of the 22 defendants were convicted and a tireless advocate for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Additionally, Ben was also a staunch world federalist and served on CGS’s National Advisory Council for decades and is the author of Planethood, which makes the case for a democratic world government. May his legacy be an inspiration for justice and peace.
Norman Cousins was the editor of the Saturday Review for more than thirty years and had a powerful platform from which to help shape American public debate during the height of the Cold War. Under Cousins’ leadership, the magazine was considered one of the most influential in the literary world. Cousins’ progressive, nonpartisan editorials in the Review earned him the respect of the public and US government officials. Norman was also a world federalist and peace activist and served as CGS’s President twice from 1952-1954 and again from 1976-1990.
by David Oughton | Apr 12, 2023 | Global Justice
Benjamin Ferencz died on April 7, 2023 at the age of 103. He lived a very rewarding and meaningful life. I had the privilege of meeting him several times, most recently when he received a lifetime achievement award from the Law School at Washington University in St. Louis. He also received a lifetime achievement award from Citizens for Global Solutions. He had served as a member of its National Advisory Board. For many years at their events, the St. Louis chapter of CGS handed out many free copies of Ben’s popular book Planethood. This primer for how to outlaw war outlines eight steps for lasting peace and prosperity.
I had the privilege of introducing the documentary film “Prosecuting Evil” at a recent Jewish Film Festival in St. Louis. This film begins with a quote from Aristotle: “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.” During his long life, Ben Ferencz saw the best and the worst of humanity. Because of his experiences in the Second World War, Ben explained how “war can make murderers out of otherwise decent people.” His lifelong passion was to free the world of the war system through legal systems. Ben’s mantra was “Law, not war.”
Ben was born in Eastern Europe of Jewish parents. When he was a baby, his family came to the United States and lived in New York City. After learning English as a replacement of his native Yiddish, Ben eventually graduated from City College and then went to Harvard Law School where he studied war crimes. He then joined the U.S. Army during the Second World War. As a war crimes investigator, he visited many concentration camps after they were liberated by the Allies.
At age 27, Ben became the chief prosecutor of one of the subsequent trials at Nuremberg. He prosecuted Nazi leaders like Otto Ohlendorf who were involved in the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile killing squads who rounded up about one million Jews and shot them. The Nazis then sought a cheaper and quicker way to murder millions of innocent people. They created death camps where many Jews were asphyxiated by poison gas. Ben referred to the Nuremberg Trials as the “biggest murder trial in history.”
After prosecuting Nazi leaders, Ben was able to force the German government to take care of Jewish cemeteries in perpetuity. He then came back to the United States and worked as a human rights lawyer. As a professor of international law at Pace University, Ben wrote many books and articles on international criminal law.
Because of his experience as a prosecutor at Nuremberg, Ben was convinced that the world needed a permanent International Criminal Court. He was a champion for the creation of the ICC which came into existence with the Treaty of Rome in 1998 and the ratification by enough national governments in 2002. The ICC can prosecute individuals involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression when national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute them. Ben saw this as an important deterrent; it sends the message that people, especially national leaders, cannot get away with mass murder. The problem is that only about two-thirds of the national governments are parties to the workings of the ICC. The United States, Russia, and China are not parties because their vetoes in the UN Security Council do not apply in the ICC. It was an op-ed in the New York Times which Ben wrote with Robert McNamara that convinced President Clinton to sign the Treaty of Rome in 2000. But President George W. Bush notified the United Nations in 2002 that the United States would not pursue ratification of this treaty.
Ben believed that universal support for the ICC would be an important step in creating “a more humane and peaceful world order.” For this man who prosecuted Nazi leaders and became one of the world’s foremost experts in international criminal law, law is better than war.
by Lawrence Wittner | Jan 31, 2023 | Global Justice, Human Rights
The Ukraine War has provided a challenging time for the nations of the world and, particularly, for international law.
Since antiquity, far-sighted thinkers have worked on developing rules of behavior among nations in connection with war, diplomacy, economic relations, human rights, international crime, global communications, and the environment. Defined as international law, this “law of nations” is based on treaties or, in some cases, international custom. Some of the best-known of these international legal norms are outlined in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions.
International Law and Ukraine
The UN Charter is particularly relevant to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Article 2, Section 4, perhaps the most important and widely-recognized item in the Charter, prohibits the “use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” In Article 51, the Charter declares that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”
Ukraine, of course, although partially or totally controlled by Russia or the Soviet Union during portions of its past, has been an independent, sovereign nation since 1991. That year, the Soviet Union, in the process of disintegration, authorized Ukraine to hold a referendum on whether to become part of the Russian Federation or to become independent. In a turnout by 84 percent of the Ukrainian public, some 90 percent of participants voted for independence. Accordingly, Ukraine was recognized as an independent nation. Three years later, in the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine’s government officially agreed to turn over its large nuclear arsenal to Russia, while the Russian government officially pledged not only to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine,” but to “refrain from the threat or use of force” against that country. In 1997, Ukraine and Russia signed the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership, in which they pledged to respect one another’s territorial integrity.
The Russian Military Assaults of 2014 and 2022
Despite these actions, which have the status of international law, the Russian government, in 2014, used its military might to seize and annex Crimea in southern Ukraine and to arm pro-Russian separatist groups in the nation’s eastern region, the Donbas. Although a Russian veto blocked a UN Security Council rebuke, the UN General Assembly, on March 27, 2014, passed a resolution (“Territorial Integrity of Ukraine”) by a vote of 100 nations to 11, with 58 nations abstaining, condemning the Russian military seizure and annexation of Crimea. Ignoring this condemnation of its behavior by the world organization, the Russian government incorporated Crimea into the Russian Federation and, in August, dispatched its military forces into the Donbas to bolster the beleaguered separatists. Over the following years, Russia’s armed forces played the major role in battling the Ukrainian government’s troops defending eastern Ukraine.
Then, on February 24, 2022, the Russian government, in the most massive military operation in Europe since World War II, launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Although UN Security Council action was again blocked by a Russian veto, the UN General Assembly took up the issue. On March 2, by a vote of 141 countries to 5 (with 35 abstentions), it demanded the immediate and complete withdrawal of Russian military forces from Ukrainian territory. Asked for its opinion on the legality of the Russian invasion, the International Court of Justice, the world’s highest judicial authority, ruled on March 16, by a vote of 13 to 2 (with Russia’s judge casting one of the two negative votes) that Russia should “immediately suspend” its invasion of Ukraine.
The Illegality of Russia’s Annexation of Ukrainian Territory
In late September 2022, when the Kremlin announced that a ceremony would take place launching a process of Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that “any annexation of a state’s territory by another state resulting from the threat or use of force is a violation of the principles of the UN Charter and international law.” Denouncing the proposed annexation, Guterres declared:
- It cannot be reconciled with the international legal framework.
- It stands against everything the international community is meant to stand for.
- It flouts the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
- It is a dangerous escalation.
- It has no place in the modern world.
Nevertheless, the following day, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an accord to annex the regions, declaring that Russia would never give them up and would defend them by any means available.
In turn, the nations of the world weighed in on the Russian action. On October 12, 2022, the UN General Assembly, by a vote of 143 countries to 5 (with 35 abstentions), called on all nations to refuse to recognize Russia’s “attempted illegal annexation” of Ukrainian land.
Law Without Enforcement
What, then, after surveying this sorry record, are we to think about the value of international law? It is certainly useful for defining the rules of international behavior―rules that are essential to a civilized world. Addressing the UN Security Council recently, the UN Secretary General declared that “the rule of law is all that stands between peace and stability” and “a brutal struggle for power and resources.” Even so, although it is better to have agreed-upon rules rather than none at all, it would be better yet―indeed, much better―to have them enforced.
And therein lies the fundamental problem: Despite agreement among nations on the principles of international law, the major entities providing global governance―the United Nations and the International Court of Justice―lack the power to enforce them. Given this weakness at the global level, nations remain free to launch wars of aggression, including wars of territorial conquest.
Surely the Russian invasion of Ukraine should convince us of the need to strengthen global governance, thereby providing a firmer foundation for the enforcement of international law.
