The arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court are the first time that leaders of a modern Western democracy have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by a global judicial body.
By themselves, the warrants, seeking the arrests of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, represent an important diplomatic landmark. They will be seen by many countries in the global south, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that international institutions are no longer necessarily tools of the West.
While the United States and Israel are not signatories to the court, more than 120 nations are, and they are formally committed to carrying out the arrest warrants if Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Gallant or any other wanted person steps on their soil, even if by accident, like a plane malfunction requiring an unscheduled landing.
The arrest warrants “are binding on all parties to the I.C.C.,” said Philippe Sands, an expert in international law who has argued before the court. “If they set foot on the territory of a state party, that state party has an obligation to arrest and transfer to The Hague. That’s pretty binding.”
But states do not always comply, especially when powerful countries are involved. Mongolia, an I.C.C. member deeply dependent on Russia for fuel, not only did not arrest its president, Vladimir V. Putin, who is wanted by the court on charges of war crimes stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it greeted him with an official state ceremony in September. South Africa, another I.C.C. member, avoided the dilemma of whether to arrest him last year when he decided not to attend a large summit in person.
And while President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil had said that there was “no reason” that Mr. Putin should fear attending the Group of 20 summit in Rio de Janeiro this year, Mr. Putin sent his foreign minister instead.
In the case of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu has his own political allies among I.C.C. member nations. Argentina is now led by President Javier Milei, who has said that the United States and Israel are Argentina’s main allies. On Thursday, Mr. Milei immediately criticized the I.C.C.’s ruling against Mr. Netanyahu, saying it “ignores Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself in the face of constant attacks by terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”
He stopped short of saying Mr. Netanyahu would be protected from arrest if he visited Argentina.
But the world will be a smaller place for Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant, who will have to plan their trips very carefully, said Daniel Reisner, a lawyer and former head of the international law branch of the Israeli military’s legal division.
Many in Israel and in the American Congress will judge the warrants as based on politics and not international law, he said. “Irrespective of what people think of Netanyahu or Gallant, neither of them committed genocide or war crimes, and that the court alleges otherwise is an indication of the travesty of international law when facing highly politicized disputes,” he said.
If the court has enhanced the reputation of international institutions in the non-Western world, it may also have damaged itself. The American Congress threatened sanctions against the court when its prosecutor first asked for the arrest warrants to be issued.
Because of the Gaza war, Israel’s reputation is already poor in large parts of the world, said Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli analyst and pollster.
“The warrants could prop up the legitimacy of international institutions already damaged from so many failures, and this could revive the sense of some consistent application of the law to Western countries, even those backed by the United States,” she said. “But the U.S. will go ballistic, and it could also begin a significant undermining of the court by the world’s most powerful nation.”
The post Netanyahu, Wanted by a Landmark Warrant, Now Faces a Smaller World appeared first on New York Times.
