The article accurately points out that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over these situations due to the lack of state party status, which is crucial for addressing international crimes. This oversight suggests either a misrepresentation by The Washington Post or a severe lack of understanding of ICC protocols.
The editorial neglects to mention that the ICC is actively engaged in the Sudan situation, having issued several arrest warrants in pursuit of justice. The inclusion of ongoing investigations, such as those into the Rapid Support Forces, was also conveniently left out.
It's critical to acknowledge that the ICC has opened preliminary examinations and is actively investigating crimes in Myanmar. The assumption that the ICC has not addressed these situations is misleading and overlooks the complexities of jurisdiction.
The legitimacy of the ICC is reaffirmed by the timely issuance of arrest warrants, showcasing that the court operates based on established legal frameworks rather than political bias. Its actions should be seen as part of its critical role in international law.
Collection
[
|
...
]