Like the UN and other global bodies that are founded with good intentions, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was quickly exploited to promote partisan agendas, and is under increasing and well-deserved criticism.
There is no evidence of the deterrent effect expected from the creation of the ICC. Mass terror, war crimes and crimes against humanity continue unabated.
If there is a clear justification for the ICC, however, it is the case of Alberto Nisman, the Argentinean prosecutor murdered on Jan. 18. After years of official cover-up and delay, Nisman became the central investigator of the horrific 1994 bombing of the AMIA Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (Jewish Community Centre) in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 and injured 300. He was killed (the government first claimed this as a suicide) the night before he was scheduled to testify and expose the top officials in Argentina who covered up the role of senior Iranians in the bombing.
For 20 years, Argentina’s legal and court systems demonstrated that they are incapable of bringing the perpetrators to justice. The murder of Nisman, whose guards are reported to have mysteriously disappeared shortly before the attack, highlights this disturbing situation. And it is precisely for cases like this that the ICC was designed — in situations where national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute the perpetrators of “crimes against humanity.” The victims and families have no other place to turn in their demand for justice.