THE PEACE and security of all people depend on the establishment and implementation of a strong rule of law in all nations. Otherwise, chaos and atrocities of all kinds — including war crimes — will prevail, like what is happening in a number of countries.
There are currently over 20 permanent and active international tribunals operating globally, and the international rule of law is upheld, in great part, by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The ICC was established on July 1, 2002, after 60 countries ratified its founding treaty, the Rome Statute. The treaty itself was adopted by 120 nations during the Rome Conference on July 17, 1998.
The court was created as a permanent judicial body to address several critical gaps in global justice, so as to end the impunity that heads of state or government and war criminals sometimes hide behind and go beyond the reach of justice. They have become so powerful and beyond rebuke in their own countries that courts there would be incapable or unwilling to prosecute them for the atrocities they committed.
Before the ICC, the United Nations (UN) had to create slow and temporary ad hoc courts to handle specific cases, such as the Nuremberg trials after World War II, or the 1990s tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The ICC was formed to serve as a permanent, standing institution to hold leaders accused of crimes against humanity or war crimes to account.
Based in The Hague, the Netherlands, the ICC operates to send a clear message to political and military leaders that crimes against humanity, or war and of aggression, will not be tolerated.
Severe rhetoric
According to a report in United Kingdom-based The Guardian, renowned for its fierce independent reporting, United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly used severe rhetoric on Iran, threatening to wipe it “off the face of this Earth,” and saying a “whole civilization will die” if Tehran attempted to assassinate him or refused to comply with Washington’s demands.
In late March and early April, Trump issued an ultimatum to Iran, demanding that it reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He also threatened a “complete demolition” of Iran’s bridges, power plants, and desalination facilities, warning on April 7 that the US would bomb the country “back to the Stone Age.”
He eventually postponed the strikes on civilian infrastructure, but has resumed air strikes across Iran. If he strikes civilian infrastructure, the president himself and members of his administration could be prosecuted for war crimes or crimes against humanity, especially once they’re out of office.
Under international law, the general targeting of purely civilian infrastructure like power plants, bridges and water systems is prohibited and typically constitutes a war crime. However, there are exceptions to whether a specific strike is legally classified as a war crime, depending on strict criteria regarding military necessity, dual-use capabilities, and proportionality.
Hitting a power plant or water purification facility would cause civilian deaths or severe disease that would lack proportionality and be classified as a war crime. Such actions are fraught with severe repercussions for perpetrators like being branded a war criminal and charged before the ICC or other international tribunals.
As threats of massive destruction of civilian infrastructure mounted and repeated, they drew a response from numerous lawmakers, international law experts, humanitarian groups, and retired military lawyers. They have all publicly warned Trump that targeting civilian infrastructure could constitute a war crime.
For example, Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton told MSNBC that “bombing civilian power infrastructure is a war crime,” directly challenging Trump’s assertions that he was “not at all” concerned about potential war crimes. (To be continued)/PN
