During one intense live television panel debate on the war in which I participated, the question was posed that the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks jurisdiction over the United States, Israel and Iran, who are all non-members.
The suggestion based on this observation was that it made the prosecution of war crimes alleged by human rights organisations nearly impossible. It was further posed that international law experts have documented alleged violations including strikes on civilian infrastructure, more than 600 schools demolished or damaged across Iran and systematic attacks on residential areas.
This prompted the question from a political and legal perspective, what does this jurisdiction gap mean for the future of international criminal law if the ICC cannot touch the most powerful actors in the world’s consequential conflicts, what is its actual function, and what, if anything, can constrain the behaviour of states outside its jurisdiction?
Another supposed analysis for discussion asks what it calls the most obvious question the so-called liberal media refuses to ask: that the Iran war itself is criminal, unjustifiable and illegal under international law and that any remaining doubt should have disappeared when the US-Israeli strikes hit civilians areas, including schools and residential districts, killing many civilians including women and children.
Bearing this liberal analysis in mind, the obvious question is: do supporters of the Trump administration agree with this assessment, and if the Iran war itself is illegal, what legitimacy can any ceasefire or agreement negotiated under its shadow possibly claim? Hard-hitting and soul-searching questions!
From a purely cynical point of view, has all this talk of ‘war crimes’ hit the headlines because of the cinematic success of the latest blockbuster, the two and a half hour epic Nuremberg, starring movie icons Russell Crowe and Rami Malek, which dramatises the trial of Nazi war criminals in Germany in 1946?
Then again, given the history of legacy issues arising from the Troubles in Ireland, could the so-called finger of alleged legacy ‘war crimes’ be pointed at the United States over the civilian deaths in 1945 when the Americans dropped two atomic bombs on two Japanese cities bringing the Second World War to a swift conclusion?
Or in that same war, what about the Allied bombing of German cities such as Dresden, Cologne and Hamburg which saw tens of thousands of civilians killed? Should Germany as a nation still be held accountable for the deaths of civilians during World War Two in the Blitz of British cities?
One of the tragedies of war over the ages is that in almost all cases, it is the civilian populations which bear the brunt of the conflicts. If this is the reality of warfare, is there any such thing as a righteous war? Indeed, what is the difference between a terrorist campaign and a legal war, if the latter actually exists?
As mankind develops even more deadlier weapons of mass destruction, could a time come when wars actually cease because those nations are too scared to deploy these horrific weapons? Or will there be always that one nation or group which decides to try and gain the upper hand in a conflict by using weapons which either their opponents do not possess, or deploy them on a ‘first strike’ basis?
Can serious ‘rules of engagement’ ever be drawn up for conflict, or are we just entering the fantasy world of computer games? The bitter reality of human nature is that what one person calls a ‘war’, another person can see the same conflict as a ‘criminal terror campaign’.
The famous wartime British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is credited with the saying that it was better to ‘jaw, jaw’ up, than ‘war war’. But can a mediation panel ever be conceived internationally that when a potential conflict is looming or bubbling up, those panellists can be sent in to defuse the situation?
Or given human nature, is it totally cynical thinking that in some situations, conflicts erupt because the leaders of those nations simply just want to get all their pent-up aggression out of their systems? Could the Christian churches act as mediators across the globe, or is the reality that religions have been the causes of many wars?
For example, in Christianity, many quote the example of Jesus Christ Himself when He physically threw the money changers out of the temple. Then again, others point to the fact that when His disciple Peter hacked off the ear of one of those coming to arrest Jesus, Christ healed the wounded man.
Perhaps the even more bitter reality which folk have to face is that man will always want a fight with his fellow man, so that the best people can hope for is to develop a comprehensive clean-up operation after the destruction.
 |
| Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter John is a Director for Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. |
No comments