SOURCE :- THE AGE NEWS
For 18 years, I have been a criminal trial judge. I believe in the rule of law and independent and impartial justice in both domestic and international criminal law. The present US administration does not hold to those principles, and is now doing all it can to undermine them.
In the case of international criminal law, the International Criminal Court derives from the legacy of Nuremberg where, in 1945, an International Military Tribunal established by the allied forces, tried 22 leading German officials for war crimes.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump.Credit: Bloomberg
Controversial though it was, the International Military Tribunal demonstrated that justice beyond borders in the form of international criminal law could be real and effective in dealing with the most horrific war crimes, and perhaps be a means of preventing them thereafter. The Nuremberg experience testified to the truth of what many, including Dr Martin Luther King Jr. had said, that “there can be no peace without justice, and there can be no justice without peace”.
In 1998, the signing of the Rome Statute for the establishment of the ICC reaffirmed the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. It meant that all UN member states would refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. These are uncontroversial and necessary international principles.
And so, pretty much without fear or favour, in 2002 the ICC went to work. As with all courts, an important foundation of the ICC was judicial independence and the application of the rule of law. Given the gravity of the court’s work, it had to be real and impartial justice – no matter who was accused of serious crimes. The judges needed to be able to conduct investigations and trials free from any form of governmental interference.
Now, that is no longer guaranteed. Nor is the court’s future.
The Rome Statute states that “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions” is a war crime.
On November 21, 2024, the pre-trial chamber of the Court issued warrants for the arrest of Hamas commander Mohammed Deif (this warrant was cancelled in January following confirmation of his death), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. The latter two face allegations of being responsible for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare, and of intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population. Charges also allege that from at least October 8, 2023 until at least May 20, 2024, Netanyahu and Gallant were responsible crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. The process, if it is allowed to be completed, will tell the world whether those allegations are proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Though US President Donald Trump always vilified the ICC, in a recent escalation, on February 6, 2025, a presidential executive order purported to sanction the court and, specifically, the prosecutor following a coincident visit from Netanyahu to Washington.
Then, last Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the US would sanction four judges of the court for what it has called the court’s “illegitimate actions” targeting the US and Israel. This is another step in the Trump war on the ICC designed to disable it.
Why the actions of the judges who were following the procedures of the court were “illegitimate” is not explained in any logical manner. Two of the judges authorised the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, and the other two authorised an ICC investigation into abuses by US personnel in Afghanistan.
So, we now see a clear attempt by an authoritarian US president and his administration to hobble an international court (and its individual judges) established to dispense justice to those who would commit war crimes. The announced sanctions target the liberty of these judges, their personal assets and their ability to carry out their duties, even to the extent of disabling their email. This is happening because an interfering president is sympathetic to those being investigated and considers his authority to be akin to monarchical absolutism.
Those of us who believe in the independence of the judiciary in all its forms and the application of the rule of law see those principles crumbling under the weight of an out-of-control White House.
God help all of us.
Lex Lasry was a criminal lawyer at the Victorian Bar from 1973 to 2007 and a Supreme Court judge from 2007 to 2024.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
