Egypt has unveiled parts of a sunken city submerged beneath waters off the coast of Alexandria, revealing buildings, artefacts and an ancient dock that date back more than 2,000 years.
Egyptian authorities said the site, located in the waters of Abu Qir Bay, may be an extension of the ancient city of Canopus, a prominent centre during the Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled Egypt for nearly 300 years, and the Roman empire, which governed for about 600 years.
Over time, earthquakes and rising sea levels submerged the city and the nearby port of Heracleion.
Divers helped to retrieve statues from the depths of the sunken city and cranes hoisted the artefacts on to dry land. Photograph: Khaled Desouki/AFP/Getty Images
On Thursday, cranes slowly hoisted statues from the depths while divers in wetsuits, who had helped retrieve them, cheered from the shore.
Egypt’s tourism and antiquities minister, Sherif Fathi, said: “There’s a lot underwater, but what we’re able to bring up is limited, it’s only specific material according to strict criteria.
“The rest will remain part of our sunken heritage.”
The underwater ruins include limestone buildings that may have served as places of worship, residential spaces and commercial or industrial structures.
Reservoirs and rock-carved ponds for domestic water storage and fish cultivation were also uncovered.
Only specific material is allowed to be retrieved from the underwater city. The rest will remain submerged. Photograph: Amr Nabil/AP
Other notable finds include statues of royal figures and sphinxes from the pre-Roman era, including a partially preserved sphinx with the cartouche of Ramses II, one of the country’s most famous and longest-ruling ancient pharaohs.
Many of the statues are missing body parts, including a beheaded Ptolemaic figure made of granite, and the lower half of a Roman nobleman’s likeness carved from marble.
A merchant ship, stone anchors and a harbour crane dating back to the Ptolemaic and Roman eras were found at the site of a 125-metre dock, which the ministry said was used as a harbour for small boats until the Byzantine period.
Notable finds include statues of royal figures and sphinxes from the pre-Roman era. Photograph: Khaled Desouki/AFP/Getty Images
Alexandria is home to countless ancient ruins and historic treasures, but Egypt’s second city is at risk of succumbing to the same waters that claimed Canopus and Heracleion.
The coastal city is especially vulnerable to the climate crisis and rising sea levels, sinking by more than 3mm every year.
Even in the United Nations’ best-case scenario, a third of Alexandria will be underwater or uninhabitable by 2050.
Moscow threw Donald Trump’s Ukraine peace initiative into disarray on Thursday, insisting it must have a veto over any postwar support for the country as its forces carried out a large-scale overnight missile barrage.
In a series of hardline remarks, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said European proposals to deploy troops in Ukraine after a settlement would amount to “foreign intervention”, which he called absolutely unacceptable for Russia.
Lavrov said Russia wanted to return to discussing a framework first proposed during the initial peace talks held in Istanbul in 2022, under which Moscow and Beijing would help guarantee Ukraine’s security alongside European allies – terms Kyiv considers unacceptable.
“We support the principles and security guarantees that were agreed … in April 2022,” Lavrov said. “Anything else … is of course an absolutely futile undertaking.”
European leaders are exploring possible security guarantees for Ukraine after the war, building on Trump’s promise to back the country under any settlement with Russia. France, Britain and Estonia have indicated they could send troops to a postwar Ukraine, while several other nations said they might take part, though much depends on US involvement.
Lavrov’s comments cast doubt on the prospects for peace talks.
After the recent Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, US officials said the Russian president had accepted the prospect of western security guarantees for Ukraine.
But the latest statements suggest Moscow may be backing away from that understanding – or that Washington may have misinterpreted the Kremlin’s position from the outset.
Trump on Thursday appeared to vent his frustration at Russia’s obstruction. In a post on Truth Social, the US president blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden, for not allowing Ukraine to “fight back” against Russia.
“It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country. It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning! It is like that with Ukraine and Russia. Crooked and grossly incompetent Joe Biden would not let Ukraine FIGHT BACK, only DEFEND. How did that work out? … Interesting times ahead!!!” Trump wrote.
Trump’s veiled threats against Russia will be welcomed in Kyiv and European capitals, though the US leader has previously backed away from imposing sanctions or boosting support for Ukraine.
Lavrov also poured cold water on the prospect of a summit between the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which has been touted by Trump. Lavrov said a bilateral meeting at the highest level would be possible only “if all issues requiring discussion are thoroughly prepared”.
He suggested that Putin would meet Zelenskyy only to accept Russia’s maximalist conditions, which would entail Ukraine’s capitulation.
Russia’s veteran foreign minister further questioned whether Zelenskyy had the legitimacy to sign any future peace accord, parroting a familiar Kremlin line that portrays Ukraine’s leadership as illegitimate.
Despite a flurry of diplomacy in recent days between Trump and his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts, the path to peace remains uncertain as Moscow has shown little willingness to climb down from its maximalist demands.
Ukraine map
Even so, the White House on Wednesday continued to strike a positive tone.
“President Trump and his national security team continue to engage with Russian and Ukrainian officials towards a bilateral meeting to stop the killing and end the war,” a White House spokesperson told Fox News.
Speaking to foreign correspondents in Kyiv, Zelenskyy, who has agreed to meet Putin, said he would like a “strong reaction” from Washington if the Russian leader was not willing to sit down for a bilateral meeting with him soon.
“I responded immediately to the proposal for a bilateral meeting: we are ready. But what if the Russians are not ready?” Zelenskyy said in comments released on Thursday from a briefing with reporters in Kyiv a day earlier.
As uncertainty over peace talks persisted, Russia launched one of its heaviest bombardments in weeks.
The Ukrainian military said Moscow had fired 574 drones and 40 missiles in a major aerial assault that struck western regions, killing at least one person and injuring 15. Ukraine’s foreign minister said a major US electronics manufacturer was among the targets.
“The message is clear: Russia is not looking for peace. Russia is attacking American business in Ukraine, humiliating American business,” said Andy Hunder, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine.
Ukraine, for its part, has stepped up drone attacks on Russian infrastructure supporting the war, with strikes on oil refineries pushing wholesale gasoline prices in Russia to record highs.
At the heart of all this are many human storiespublished at 15:03 British Summer Time
15:03 BST
Tom Joyner Live reporter
Among the backlog of asylum claims waiting to be processed is Daastan’s.
The 26-year-old fled Afghanistan two years ago, fearing for his life after his father and brother were targeted by the Taliban.
After arriving in the UK, he applied for asylum and the Home Office found him a hotel room in Yorkshire, where he’s been ever since.
Every day, Daastan is given three meals and is allowed to leave for a walk if he signs out with a guard. Other than that, he says he spends most of his time in silence – his only roommate doesn’t speak English.
He told me it often feels like he is floating in a hopeless limbo: “You escape one problem and now you’re in another problem,” he explains, referring to his escape from the Taliban.
The nightly news coverage of protests against asylum seekers has only made things worse. One day, through his window, he watched as guards and police surrounded the hotel and stopped protestors from getting any closer to him.
“All we asylum seekers wanted was a shelter so the government put us in a hotel. That wasn’t our choice,” he says. “We haven’t done anything!”
Daastan’s mental health has taken a heavy toll, and he now takes antidepressants.
Around a year after he arrived in the UK, Daastan found out that his claim had been denied. With the help of a solicitor, he lodged an appeal, and is now awaiting news of the outcome.
Last year, he joined a local cricket team near his hotel, eager to play the game he loved back home in Afghanistan. But one day, his teammate made a comment about Daastan’s status as an asylum seeker.
“They didn’t know I understand English and they were talking about me using a lot of bad words. They gave me lots of depression,” he says.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Thursday that he wants more clarity on potential Western security guarantees before agreeing to sit down for a face-to-face meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
“We want to have an understanding of the security guarantees architecture within seven to 10 days,” Zelensky said in comments to reporters. “We need to understand which country will be ready to do what at each specific moment.”
Britain and France are leading efforts to form a military coalition to back the guarantees, whatever they end up being. Once an outline is agreed, Zelensky said U.S. President Donald Trump would like to see a bilateral meeting between him and Putin, but only in a “neutral” European country.
“Switzerland, Austria, we agree… For us, Turkey is a NATO country and part of Europe. And we are not opposed,” he said of possible locations for that summit.
Zelensky previously said that the only way to end the war is through a three-way meeting with Trump and Putin. On Monday, Trump announced that plans are apparently underway for a summit between Putin and Zelensky, after which a trilateral session including himself could take place.
Russia has yet to confirm those plans. And in recent days, officials in Moscow have issued vaguely worded statements that suggest they are simply open to the idea in principle but not ready to make solid commitments anytime soon.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed this week that Putin has always been open to meeting with Zelensky in person, even though the Russian leader rejected such an offer in May, while also earlier questioning his Ukrainian counterpart’s legitimacy as president.
On Thursday, Lavrov accused Ukraine of seeking “unrealistic” guarantees that were incompatible with Russia’s demands, saying that any deployment of European troops in Ukraine as part of a peace plan would be “absolutely unacceptable.”
The minister has demanded that Russia have an effective veto in security guarantees for Ukraine. He said that any discussions on the matter that do not include Moscow would be “a road to nowhere” and fail to address what it refers to as the “root causes” of the war.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials told The Guardian on Thursday that Trump plans to take a step back from peace talks for now as he waits for Ukrainian and Russian officials to organize a meeting between their two leaders.
“I just want to see what happens at the meeting. So they’re in the process of setting it up and we’re going to see what happens,” Trump told talk show host Mark Levin on WABC earlier this week.
Despite Trump’s flurry of diplomacy in recent weeks, including a summit with Putin in Alaska and a White House meeting with Zelensky and European leaders, little tangible progress in peace negotiations has emerged, and both Russia and Ukraine appear dug into their earlier positions.
BEIJING — With leader Xi Jinping looking on, China marked 60 years of Communist Party rule in Tibet on Thursday with speeches and a parade in front of the 17th-century Potala Palace, the home of the Dalai Lama until he fled to India in 1959.
Speakers hailed economic development in the remote region in the foothills of the Himalayas and stressed the need to fight separatism. Opposition to Chinese rule has been largely quashed by a decades-long campaign of repression that has imprisoned Buddhist monks and demolished some monasteries.
“Tibetan affairs are China’s internal affairs, and no external forces are permitted to interfere. All schemes to split the motherland and undermine stability in Tibet are doomed to fail,” senior Communist Party leader Wang Huning told a crowd of 20,000 flag-waving people in a large public square.
Communist forces occupied Tibet in 1951, two years after emerging victorious in a civil war and taking control of China. The anniversary marked the government’s establishment of the Tibet autonomous region in 1965. It is called Xizang in Chinese.
The parade, along a wide avenue between the square and a covered stage for special guests, included floats highlighting the regions of Tibet and large dance troupes that stopped in front of the square to perform. Troops and police marched in formation, shouting out their mottos. Others held up wide banners that proclaimed Communist Party slogans.
“The great achievements of the Tibet autonomous region over the past 60 years fully demonstrate that only under the leadership of the Communist Party of China … can Tibet achieve prosperity and progress, create a bright future, and enable people of all ethnic groups in Tibet to live a happy and healthy new life,” Wang told the gathering.
The 13-story Potala Palace, now a tourist site, provided an impressive backdrop from its perch atop a rocky outcropping in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet.
The Dalai Lama, who recently turned 90, still lives in India and is the spiritual leader of Tibet. China considers him a threat and says it has the right to appoint his reincarnation after his death. Many overseas Tibetans are critical of Chinese rule and a government-in-exile has been set up in the mountainous Indian town of Dharamshala.
An Israeli operation to conquer Gaza City would be a “death sentence” for the remaining living Israeli hostages held in Gaza, relatives of the hostages have said, as the Red Cross and UN warned of a looming catastrophe.
Opposition to a new operation – repeatedly “approved” by Israeli figures in recent days – is growing inside Israel and internationally. Calling for an immediate ceasefire, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, warned of the “massive death and destruction that a military operation against Gaza would inevitably cause”.
Christian Cardon, the chief spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said: “The intensification of hostilities in Gaza means more killing, more displacement, more destruction and more panic. Gaza is a closed space, from which nobody can escape … and where access to health care, food and safe water is dwindling. Meanwhile, the security of humanitarians is getting worse by the hour. This is intolerable.”
On Thursday, the IDF said medical officials and aid groups in the northern part of the territory had been told “to prepare for the population’s movement to the southern Gaza Strip”.
Aid organisations say Israel has made negligible efforts to significantly increase humanitarian assistance to Gaza to the levels needed by the population, prompting a warning from the French president, Emmanuel Macron, of the danger of a “true disaster”.
The families of Israeli hostages held a press conference to call for Israel to agree to a ceasefire deal – already accepted by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – which would result in half of the remaining 20 surviving hostages being released.
“We’re a step away from a total torpedoing” of a deal, said Lishay Miran Lavi, whose husband, Omri, is thought to still be alive in captivity. “There is an agreement on the table that could save the lives of hostages and return the dead for proper burial.
“Hamas has agreed, but the prime minister’s office is working to sabotage it, which would sentence the living hostages to death and the dead to disappearance … The public demands the return of the hostages and an end to the war, which has lost all sense. You cannot conduct a 22-month war whose sole purpose is to preserve political power.”
Representatives from hostage families referred sceptically to the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated promises that Israel is close to victory.
Palestinians have already begun to head south amid Israel’s warnings of further military action in Gaza City. Photograph: Dawoud Abu Alkas/Reuters
Israel’s increasing defiance of international opinion has pushed it ever closer to the status of a pariah state, both for the destruction and mass starvation it has visited on Gaza in almost two years of war, and for its approval on Wednesday of a massive illegal settlement aimed at destroying any possibility of a future Palestinian state. The approval was described by the British foreign secretary, David Lammy, as a “flagrant breach” of international law.
Netanyahu’s plans for a major new offensive have prompted large-scale demonstrations in Israel. About 400,000 joined a protest on Sunday and more demonstrations are planned for this weekend.
A weakened Netanyahu appears to have bent to the demands of far-right minority parties in his fragile coalition who have called for the conquest of Gaza and threatened to collapse the government in the event of a ceasefire deal.
The Israeli military bombarded Gaza City overnight, a day after it was announced that 60,000 reservists were being called up. A military official said most reservists would not serve in combat, giving strength to the argument that at least some of Israel’s recent statements amount to posturing against the background of complex and continuing ceasefire talks.
Calling up tens of thousands of reservists is likely to take weeks, giving time for mediators to attempt to bridge gaps over a new temporary ceasefire proposal that Hamas has accepted, but the Israeli government is yet to officially respond to.
That proposal, which aligns with an outline drawn up by the US president Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, calls for a 60-day ceasefire and the release of 10 living hostages being held in Gaza by Hamas militants and of 18 bodies. In turn, Israel would release about 200 long-serving Palestinian prisoners.
Significantly, Israel had signalled weeks ago that it accepted that outline for a deal, with the distance between Hamas and Israel’s negotiators only closing since.
Netanyahu is scheduled to meet some cabinet ministers on Thursday to discuss his plan to seize Gaza City, according to Haaretz and other Israeli media outlets, without giving more details.
The plan was approved this month by the security cabinet, which he chairs, even though many of Israel’s closest allies have urged the government to reconsider.
In Gaza City, thousands of Palestinians have left their homes as Israeli forces have escalated shelling on the Sabra and Tuffah neighbourhoods. Some families have left for shelters along the coast, while others have moved to central and southern parts of the territory, according to local people there.
“We are facing a bitter-bitter situation, to die at home or leave and die somewhere else: as long as this war continues, survival is uncertain,” said Rabah Abu Elias, 67, a father of seven.
“In the news, they speak about a possible truce; on the ground, we only hear explosions and see deaths. To leave Gaza City or not isn’t an easy decision to make,” he told Reuters by phone.
GENEVA: Israel’s expanded offensive in the Gaza Strip, aimed at conquering Gaza City and targeting the remaining Hamas strongholds in the besieged Palestinian territory, is “intolerable,” the Red Cross said on Thursday.
The Israeli military’s plan, which includes the call-up of roughly 60,000 reservists, has deepened fears that the campaign will worsen the already catastrophic humanitarian crisis in the blockaded coastal strip.
“The intensification of hostilities in Gaza means more killing, more displacement, more destruction and more panic,” Christian Cardon, chief spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), told AFP.
“Gaza is a closed space, from which nobody can escape… and where access to health care, food and safe water is dwindling,” said Cardon.
“Meanwhile, the security of humanitarians is getting worse by the hour,” the spokesman added.
“This is intolerable.”
Cardon has taken an active role in the Red Cross’s humanitarian activities on the ground, and has been involved in every exchange of the Israeli hostages taken by Hamas in the Palestinian militant group’s October 7, 2023 attack.
That attack, which sparked the war in Gaza, resulted in the death of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official figures.
Of the 251 hostages kidnapped by Hamas, 49 are still held captive in Gaza, including 27 who the Israeli military believes are dead.
Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed at least 62,122 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to figures from the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza, which the United Nations considers reliable.
Media restrictions in Gaza and difficulties in accessing many areas mean AFP is unable to independently verify the tolls and details provided by the civil defense agency or the Israeli military.
(Web Desk) – Frank Caprio, the Rhode Island judge who became a global symbol of compassion through his courtroom series Caught in Providence, has died aged 88.
His family announced that he “passed away peacefully” after a long battle with pancreatic cancer.
For nearly four decades on the bench, Caprio blended humour and empathy with the law, earning him the affectionate title of “the nicest judge in the world”. Clips of his rulings have been viewed more than a billion times across social media platforms.
Who was Frank Caprio?
Caprio served as chief judge of the municipal court of Providence, Rhode Island, from 1985 until his retirement in 2023. His televised proceedings on Caught in Providence showcased his unconventional style – often inviting children to help decide minor cases, forgiving fines when defendants were in hardship, and addressing larger issues such as unequal access to justice. The show was nominated for multiple Daytime Emmys and cemented his reputation as a jurist who tempered justice with humanity.
Born to a working-class family in Providence, Caprio rose from humble beginnings. His career spanned teaching, law, politics, and broadcasting, yet it was his courtroom kindness that resonated most with audiences worldwide.
What made him special?
Caprio’s fame was not built on strict rulings but on understanding people’s stories. In viral moments, he dismissed fines for struggling defendants, paid out of his own fund to help citizens, and reminded viewers that justice could be compassionate. His courtroom was described as “a place where people and cases are met with kindness and compassion”.
His relatability extended beyond the United States. In 2019, he became a household name in Pakistan after excusing parking tickets for a Pakistani student, Ahmad Salman, and later inviting him to his family’s dinner table.
He also shared a message on Pakistan’s Independence Day, in which he praised the country’s spirit of unity, faith, and discipline.
How is he remembered?
Judge Caprio’s passing was confirmed in a heartfelt statement by his family, recalling his “warmth, humour, and unwavering belief in the goodness of people”. Tributes poured in from state leaders, colleagues, and millions of fans across the world who had been inspired by his viral clips.
He is survived by his wife, Joyce Caprio, five children, seven grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. His son, David, said the love and prayers from people worldwide helped his father outlive his cancer diagnosis by more than a year.
The ICC has also been heavily criticised for promising too much and delivering too little.
Modern international criminal law was born after the Second World War, when the Allied powers sat in judgment over the crimes of the Nazis in the trials at Nuremberg. Justice Robert Jackson remarked in his opening speech at the tribunal, “that four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stayed the hand of vengeance, and voluntarily submitted their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason”. The promise of international criminal justice was set from that point and it was set rather high; not only was it to deter future violators and morally denounce such conduct, it was also to create lasting peace and promote national reconciliation.
The question of whether criminal accountability can achieve those aims is now laid at the feet of the International Criminal Court. In particular, its critics argue that it must ensure that it is not only those on the losing side of the war who get prosecuted, others take issue with the aims themselves, that the notion that peace cannot exist without justice is itself false, as ‘[t]he offer to a terrible dictator—go away and live out your life in an obscure village— cannot be persuasively offered, as it may be trumped by an [International Criminal Court] prosecution. If mediators can only say that he’s a dead man either way, he will probably prefer to die in his boots than expire in a pin-striped suit at The Hague.’ If the prospect of prosecution means that ‘terrible dictators’ are more likely to cling to power, then the pursuit of justice may itself trump peace.
Victors’ Justice?
Former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda notes that the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials after World War II laid the bricks for a global system based on the international rule of law. The long arc of justice that started in Nuremberg, she says, then continued towards Rome (where the treaty to establish the ICC was formulated). However, many argue that the trials of German and Japanese leaders by the Allied powers were themselves a form of victors’ justice, and that that arc too continues to today.
After World War I
Traditionally international law was addressed to states and while there were some instances of individual violators being punished (such as the Von Hagenbach trial of 1474 and the French-Siamese Arbitral Tribunal in 1893-4) and there was some domestic law punishing violations of the laws of war (such as the Lieber Code 1863), by and large individuals were outside the purview of the law (apart from arguably pirates in the 17th century). There was a renewed emphasis on individual responsibility following World War I where the Treaty of Versailles included four articles providing for the punishment of those who had violated the laws of war.
Raymond Poincaré, the French President, announced to the victors at Versailles that “[h]umanity can place confidence in you, because you are not among those who have outraged the rights of humanity.’ At the same time, the Belgians, French and British (all included in ‘humanity’) were responsible for three centuries of ‘sometimes violent, certainly racially-inflected, Empire’. Still, no trials were ever held under the Treaty of Versailles and while the agreement sought to prosecute the Kaiser of Germany, he had fled to the Netherlands and his surrender was not requested.
After World War II
Post-World War II, however, individual responsibility for the Axis powers was preferred by the United States and France over the summary executions favoured by the British and the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials were held. The judges at Nuremberg noted that “[c]rimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced”. Articles 1 and 6 of the London Charter establishing the Nuremberg trial noted that any person committing an act in violation of international law is criminally punishable. Ultimately, twenty-two leading Nazis were tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace; twelve were sentenced to death, seven received jail terms and three were acquitted.
There were several criticisms of the trials. Detractors called them ‘high-tech lynching’ because it was only the victors trying the vanquished in what was essentially a pre-determined proceeding, in that the leading Nazis were almost certain to be found guilty. Moreover, it was argued, particularly by the Indian Justice Radhabinod Pal in the Tokyo Trials, that “the tribunal was a sham employment of legal process for the satisfaction of a thirst for revenge.” He argued that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the worst crimes committed during the war, comparable with the Holocaust, and yet there were no prosecutions for those crimes. However, the Nuremberg trial was hailed as a victory of reason over vengeance, and modern international criminal law was born.
Other International Criminal Tribunals
Since Nuremberg, there have been tribunals established by the United Nations’ Security Council under its mandate to maintain international peace and security. These were the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ICTY’s conviction of Duško Tadić made him the first non-Nazi to be tried before an international criminal court in Europe since 1946, and he was one of the first non-Nazis to be tried anywhere for crimes against humanity. Both of these tribunals have, however, been criticised. The ICTR did not prosecute individuals who were connected with the then-government of Rwanda and the ICTY was noted for having viewed ethnic groups in terms of victims and perpetrators rather than focusing on individuals and their conduct. Moreover, United States’ President Bush tied the handing over of former Serbian President Milošević to aid for Yugoslavia, furthering accusations of political bias.
The International Criminal Court
In 1998, the Rome Statute created the only extant and permanent international criminal court to be established under a multilateral treaty. The ICC came into being on July 1, 2002 and state parties accept the jurisdiction of the Court for the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The ICC has also been heavily criticised for promising too much and delivering too little. In the fifteen years after it was established, it had cost between 80 to 140 million Euros, with 300 staff, and had only brought ten cases, securing five convictions with one overturned on appeal. If its success was judged on the number of convictions secured it may be asked whether it is worth it given the enormous resources poured into the institution. Though it is also arguable that the mere fact of acquittals may indicate that the process is fair, particularly given the high burden of proof for such crimes.
Others argue in favour of other means of justice apart from criminal accountability. In particular they point to South Africa after the fall of apartheid, where prosecutions were generally not held. Instead of adversarial proceedings, there was a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in which the evidence of what had occurred during apartheid was recorded for the public record. Instead of determining guilt, victims wanted what had happened to their loved ones to be publicised. In doing so, they endeavoured to educate generations to come and preserve the historical record of the crimes that had occurred, rather than holding criminal trials.
Today, for the first time, the ICC is looking into a situation, and issuing arrest warrants for the head of state, of an ally of the West. It is its chance to show that international criminal justice is not simply a case of victors’ vengeance. The crimes conducted by the leaders of Israel after October 7, 2023 also give the court the chance to prove that the path to peace is through justice.
This article by Ayesha Malik was produced with the support of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as part of the Legally Speaking podcast series. The views expressed are the author’s own.
