The International Criminal Court in the crossfire

A number of arguments can be made against the International Criminal Court. Also fundamentals. The states are therefore free to submit to its statute. For that reason alone it is not a world court. The Hague Court relies on the States, which in turn may fall under its jurisdiction if they allegedly commit crimes of common concern on the territory of a Contracting State. In practice this is extremely difficult. Some states are abandoning the court, considering it an instrument of Western rulers, while others are fighting it. In particular the USA, which was involved in its creation and had even signed the statute.

The sanctions, which are now intended to personally affect the (Japanese) President of the Criminal Court, no longer have anything to do with criticism or efforts for reform. They are an open fight against the law that has been agreed upon by a majority of all states, especially the European allies. Now Germany in particular should not act as a model nerd. The hope that the Israeli head of government, who is wanted with an arrest warrant from the Criminal Court, will not test Germany with a visit is significant. However, everyone can see from the Israeli Police Minister's recent statements that we must continually reassure ourselves of our civilizational foundations. The International Criminal Court was created as a kind of heir to the Nuremberg Tribunal. Anyone who denies other people's humanity and demands that they be eradicated is violating this heritage. And is rightly pilloried. First, of course, there are Israel's neighbors with their genocidal intentions and actions. It would be good if every state got such excesses under control itself. This is also the basic idea of ​​the International Criminal Court.