Lire la version en français / Hier auf Deutsch lesen / Lea la versión en español
Ask people what they think about the term “universal human rights,” and I bet you’ll find the word “rights” is less problematic for many than the word “universal.”
Folks don’t generally take issue with the idea that they have fundamental freedoms, or human rights, themselves. But it’s often trickier to convince them that everyone else also has those same rights.
It’s the old us-versus-them problem. When it’s me, my family, and my friends, it’s easier to empathize than when it’s someone else, particularly someone not like me, my family, and my friends. In a war, these feelings get amplified, and people too easily deny the rights of victims if they are seen as enemy rather than ally.
We can see this on a grand scale in a strain of US political thinking about the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The US is not one of the 124 member countries of the ICC. Still, both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations have supported the court in specific cases. The US government has even assisted with the arrest of suspects wanted by the court. The Biden administration has recognized the court’s key role in addressing atrocity crimes in Ukraine and Darfur, Sudan.
When it comes to the ICC looking into Israel’s actions in Gaza, however, the approach shifts sharply among US politicians (Republicans and Democrats, including Biden) who want to be seen supporting Israel.
We saw this even before ICC prosecutor Karim Khan announced he was seeking arrest warrants for five leading figures, three from Hamas and two from the Israeli government. In April, twelve US senators threatened to sanction Khan if he pursued cases against top Israeli officials.
After the warrant applications were announced, the US House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at imposing sanctions against the ICC, its officials, and those supporting investigations at the court involving US citizens or allies. Biden has so far opposed the current bill, but it is now under consideration in the US Senate.
Apparently, for some US politicians, international law should apply to some perpetrators, but not to others; some victims deserve justice, but not others.
It’s an assault on the very concept of universality. As I’ve said many times before: If you only care about war crimes when your enemies commit them, then you don’t really care about war crimes, do you?
But there is some hope in this story, as well.
Ninety-three member countries of the ICC have declared their “unwavering support” for the court in the face of these and other recent threats. They reconfirmed their backing for the court “as an independent and impartial judicial institution” and their commitment to defending the ICC, its officials, and those cooperating with it from any political interference and pressure.
It’s an encouraging sign of universal principles over politics.
