ICC: The Conscience of Humanity

ICC: The Conscience of Humanity

✍️Author’s Note
The International Criminal Court is humanity’s fragile conscience — often ignored, sometimes scorned, yet essential.
This piece argues that justice must remain universal or it ceases to be justice at all. Selective morality only multiplies suffering.

“The law is not a weapon of the strong; it is the shield of the weak.” — Anonymous (Judges’ Oath, The Hague)

Introduction: The Conundrum of International Justice

Through the prism of history, humanity’s enduring entanglement with conflict and war is undeniable. Hegel’s metaphor of the ‘slaughter-bench of history’ aptly captures the recurring devastation wrought by humanity’s darker impulses. This grim reality persists today in crises such as those unfolding in Palestine and Ukraine.

In the aftermath of the 20th century’s unprecedented horrors, institutions like the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals emerged as beacons of accountability, seeking to root international relations in principles of justice. These efforts culminated in frameworks such as the Vienna Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Genocide Convention—cornerstones of an international legal system designed to protect humanity’s most vulnerable. Within this system, the International Criminal Court (ICC) plays a pivotal role as the conscience of global justice.

1. The Gaza Conflict and Allegations of Genocide

The ongoing conflict in Gaza has escalated to a tragic and critical juncture, with actions that evoke striking parallels to the prohibitions of the Genocide Convention. Drafted in response to the Nazi Holocaust, the convention specifically targets acts committed with the ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.’

This is not a conclusion reached lightly. Statements by Israeli officials and analyses by experts such as historian Amos Goldberg lend weight to these allegations. Goldberg recently observed, ‘What is happening in Gaza is genocide because Gaza does not exist anymore.’ These concerns align with the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) provisional rulings in 2024,  one ruling declared Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem unlawful, along with its settlement regime, annexations, and exploitation of natural resources and a separate case condemned Israel’s actions under the Genocide Convention and highlighted the dire and deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza.

This tragic reality marks a departure from the more secular, liberal vision of Israel’s founding leaders, such as David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Dayan. While Dayan candidly acknowledged that no Israeli settlement exists without replacing an Arab village—communities that were erased to create the Jewish state, he advocated for pragmatic peace efforts, exemplified by his role in the Egypt-Israel accords, including unilateral disengagement from the 1967 occupied territories.

The evolution under leaders like Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and Bejamin Netanyahu reflects the shift toward a hardline, religiously influenced ideology, with aspirations for a ‘Greater Israel,’ sidelining international law and perpetuating decades of occupation. The international community, particularly the United States and its European allies, must grapple with the implications of their continued support for these actions.

2. The ICC and the Fight for International Justice

The ICC’s mandate to hold perpetrators of the gravest crimes accountable represents a moral compass for the global community. This applies directly to the situation in Gaza, where, on November 21, 2024, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. The charges, including war crimes such as starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity, signal a pivotal moment in the pursuit of justice for Palestine.

Yet the ICC’s effectiveness is under unprecedented strain. Both Israel and the United States have escalated their attacks on the court, rejecting its legitimacy and even absurdly accusing its prosecutor of antisemitism for investigating Gaza. Such rhetoric not only undermines the ICC’s credibility but also weakens the broader international legal framework, emboldening other nations to defy justice.

The selective application of justice by powerful states is particularly troubling. The United States, despite its commitments under the Genocide, continues to supply arms to Israel while condemning alleged war crimes elsewhere. This hypocrisy erodes trust in international institutions and diminishes their moral authority.

3. Victor’s Justice and the Dangers of Hypocrisy

The selective application of justice risks reducing international law to a tool of ‘victor’s justice.’ History offers troubling precedents, from the post-World War II tribunals to recent cases involving leaders like Saddam Hussein and Saif Gaddafi. While these acts were framed as justice, they often served geopolitical interests rather than universal accountability.

This hypocrisy is emblematic in U.S. policy. President Joe Biden applauded ICC warrants against Russian President Vladimir Putin but dismissed similar actions targeting Netanyahu and Gallant. Josep Borrell, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs, aptly criticized this double standard: ‘Enough is enough. Either we respect the International Criminal Court, or we do not. Stop trying to intimidate the judges of the ICC.’

Such selective justice reinforces scepticism among the Global South, where many view international institutions as extensions of Western dominance. To counter this perception, powerful nations must consistently uphold the principles of international law, applying them impartially to allies and adversaries alike.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability

The Gaza conflict is not merely a regional crisis; it is a defining test of the international community’s commitment to justice and human rights. The ICC’s investigations into alleged war crimes in Palestine are not attacks on any one nation but vital steps toward accountability and the prevention of future atrocities.

Turning a blind eye to these violations compromises the integrity of international law and betrays the moral obligations we collectively share. To avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, we must stand firm in supporting institutions like the ICC, demanding accountability from all nations—whether allies or adversaries. Only through consistent, principled action can we strengthen the global order and build a future rooted in justice and humanity.

William J J Houtzager, Aka WJJH, November 2025

📌Blog Excerpt
The International Criminal Court (ICC) stands as a vital institution for global accountability, especially amid the Gaza conflict and accusations of genocide.
But when powerful nations apply international law selectively, they undermine its very foundation. Only consistent enforcement can preserve justice and prevent future atrocities.