On July 9, 2025, Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrival at the Capitol to meet U.S. lawmakers underscored the complex and often frustrating landscape of international justice in the context of the ongoing conflict in Gaza. As the war rages on, many observers have placed their hopes in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), expecting these institutions to deliver justice and accountability. However, nearly two years into the conflict, these courts have not only failed to prevent atrocities but have also struggled to hold perpetrators accountable.
The disappointment with the ICJ and ICC is not unfounded. Established to address disputes between states and prosecute individuals for serious crimes, these courts have become focal points in discussions about international justice. Yet, as Brian Finucane from the International Crisis Group notes, “The ICC takes up way too much oxygen in discussions of international criminal justice and accountability.” This narrow focus often overlooks significant developments occurring within national judicial systems, where Palestinians might find a more viable path to justice.
The historical context of international trials, such as Nuremberg, shapes public expectations. Jake Romm, a human rights lawyer, emphasizes that Gaza represents a dire situation warranting international legal intervention. Despite this, the ICJ and ICC have not been entirely inactive since the conflict escalated on October 7, 2023. In early 2024, the ICJ responded to a case brought by South Africa, issuing provisional measures aimed at preventing genocidal acts and ensuring humanitarian aid flow. The ICC, too, issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, citing war crimes related to starvation and other inhumane acts.
However, the slow pace of justice is disheartening. The ICJ may not reach a decision on the genocide case until at least 2027, and the likelihood of seeing Netanyahu or his associates prosecuted remains slim, especially after Hungary allowed Netanyahu safe passage, undermining the ICC’s authority. The ICC itself faces internal crises, including leadership challenges and external political pressures, which complicate its ability to function effectively.
Chantal Meloni, an associate professor of criminal law, points out that international law relies heavily on state cooperation for enforcement. The Rome Statute clearly delineates that not all international crimes fall under ICC jurisdiction, placing the onus on states to fulfill their obligations to prevent and punish such crimes. This is where national courts come into play, often possessing the resources and flexibility to pursue justice more effectively than international bodies.
Mark Lattimer, executive director of the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, highlights the potential of domestic courts to address a broader range of suspects and cases. National jurisdictions can pursue accountability without the political constraints that often hinder international courts. This independence can lead to more robust investigations and prosecutions, as seen in historical precedents from conflicts in Syria, the Balkans, and elsewhere.
Recent developments indicate a shift toward utilizing domestic jurisdictions for accountability regarding Israeli military actions in Gaza. The Hind Rajab Foundation and the Global Legal Action Network have spearheaded efforts to file complaints in various countries, leading to notable actions such as the detention of Israeli soldiers in Belgium. This marks a significant moment in international law, as it represents the first instance of national authorities detaining Israeli military personnel over alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Despite these advancements, the political climate in many countries poses significant challenges to prosecuting Israeli soldiers. The Hind Rajab Foundation’s request for U.S. authorities to investigate an Israeli soldier under federal law illustrates the uphill battle faced in seeking justice. The U.S. War Crimes Act, while a powerful tool, has seen limited application, raising concerns about selective enforcement and the disparity in responses to international crimes.
Romm emphasizes the need for continued advocacy, stating, “We filed this because we want them to prosecute, and because they can.” The foundation’s commitment to pursuing justice reflects a broader trend of increasing scrutiny on military actions and a growing recognition of the need for accountability.
As the conflict continues, the message is clear: the pursuit of justice for the atrocities committed in Gaza is far from over. The absence of a statute of limitations for grave international crimes means that accountability can be sought long after the events have transpired. Historical examples, such as the prosecution of a 100-year-old former Nazi, remind us that justice can be delayed but not denied.
In this complex landscape, the call for a multitude of prosecutions resonates strongly. As advocates push for accountability, the hope is that a robust and independent judicial response will emerge, ensuring that those responsible for war crimes in Gaza face the consequences of their actions. The path to justice may be long and fraught with challenges, but the commitment to accountability remains unwavering.
