The EU has taken decisive action against Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. Yet, for decades of Palestinian rights violations, there has been minimal EU intervention. This damages first and foremost the EU and its credibility, as those who believe in justice expect impartiality. Otherwise it is not justice, it is just another way of doing international politics.
Johann Soufi is a lawyer specialised in international criminal law. He is the Founder and Strategic Director of the Institute for International Legal and Advocacy Training, and Counsel at the International Criminal Court. He has notably worked as a Senior International Prosecutor in Ukraine for Global Rights Compliance, and as the Head of the Legal Affairs Office at the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Johann Soufi co-represents 21 Palestinian victims demanding a referral of the matter to the EU Council to request the sanction of five individuals, including Netanyahu, Gallant, Ben Gvir and Smortich.
Interview by Dorothea Böttcher, Justine Fouchard, Emma Huet, Mathilde Pichon, and Léna Tisserant (2024).
The interview was conducted in early May 2024 and has been edited for clarity.
Outside of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) arenas, victims also seek accountability through other avenues. Notably, you've been involved in a request filed this February with the head of EU Foreign Policy, Josep Borrell. You represented 21 Palestinian victims alongside your colleague Sara Sameur. Together, you demanded a referral of the matter to the EU Council to request the sanction of five individuals, including Netanyahu, Gallant, Ben Gvir and Smotrich.
What outcome do you anticipate for the victims you represent, and why have you chosen to utilize EU institutions rather than the ICC, whose jurisdiction specifically targets the systematic and generalized crimes you've described?
Firstly because it is important to respect the wishes of the victims. The victims wanted to explore different avenues. While they were already victims before the ICC, they felt that the EU should stand for its values.
I strongly believe in the EU as a political project. Consider this: it was created just five years after a devastating war that ravaged Europe, one of the most horrible crimes in the history of humanity. France and Germany, enemies for 100 years, came together to create something remarkable, even abolishing borders. Today, leaders from these countries dine together in Paris, and programs like Erasmus foster unity among European youth and that seems totally normal for every single person of our generation.
When people claim the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is too complex to resolve, I question why. From my perspective, it's not so different from the challenges Europe overcame. While working in Gaza, I could travel to Tel Aviv in just 45 minutes. This privilege stemmed from holding a UN passport, something my colleagues in Gaza could only dream of. Yet, from an external perspective, the situation didn't seem as complex to me. So, putting things into context, what can the EU bring?
Hope. But how? By standing by its values, particularly by putting human rights at the core of its external policies. The EU has taken decisive action against Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. Yet, for decades of Palestinian rights violations, there has been minimal EU intervention. This damages first and foremost the EU and its credibility, as those who believe in justice expect impartiality. Otherwise it is not justice, it is just another way of doing international politics. And then, there is hardly any distinction between the policies of the EU, the American, the Chinese... It is just a question of power. In that competition, the EU is at a disadvantage because we lack the military force of a great power and do not have a unified external policy in that regard.
The idea was to bring the case before the EU and impose sanctions against Israeli leaders. Why target them? Because the crimes in Gaza and the West Bank are not individual crimes, they stem from long-standing governmental policies. Simply sanctioning individual settlers, as France and the US have done, lacks efficacy. Instead, we must recognize the systemic nature of these violations and take meaningful action, similar to what has been done against Russia. The EU does not even have to be creative. It can simply replicate what it has done in response to the situation in Russia and apply it to the Palestinian context because these are similar violations.
We also aimed to elaborate on the fact that the most advanced access to justice proceedings for victims of international crimes often occurs within domestic trials under universal jurisdiction. This is particularly evident in civil law countries, where victim participation in trials tends to be higher. For instance, consider the Syrian Koblenz trials in Germany. However, why do you believe that, in contrast, the international legal system appears to lack a fundamental aspect of the legal order, which is justice and reparations for the victims?
I believe that international justice has undergone significant evolution in recent years, particularly in its core principles.
Initially, with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), there was an emphasis on the primary jurisdiction of these courts over domestic jurisdiction. The ICC, on the other hand, operates under a different paradigm, viewing itself as complementary to domestic jurisdiction.
Why is this so? It is widely acknowledged that, for victims, proximity to the legal process is crucial, as judges can better grasp cultural nuances, language intricacies, the legal context and proceedings. That is one very important aspect.
The second one is that international justice is the collective responsibility of every nation. We cannot solely rely on a prosecutor with fewer than 500 staff members and an almost global jurisdiction to deliver justice to all victims worldwide. That is simply unfeasible.
Hence, universal jurisdiction emerges as a valuable tool. For instance, France is notably active in combating impunity, yet for universal jurisdiction to be effective, it must be perceived as universally applicable. This is crucial because selective application could be construed as another form of domination, particularly over nations in the global South.
Take, for example, France's recent case against a Liberian for crimes in Liberia. I worked on the Charles Taylor case, and I cannot describe the pictures I have seen even, and it was not possible to conduct trials in the country. The fact that France brings them a form of justice is great.
But at the same time, France does not prosecute its own citizens who are right now committing crimes in Gaza or in the West Bank. In this case, what is the legitimacy of this action? France is judging a Liberian for crimes committed in Liberia 30 years ago but fails to prosecute its own citizens engaged in current offences in Gaza or the West Bank.
People often have a narrow view of what constitutes complicity in international crimes. It extends beyond direct actions like rape or pressing the trigger to encompass contributing factors like the restriction of humanitarian aid, which constitutes a war crime. Therefore, all citizens involved in such acts should be investigated at the very least.
This approach instills hope in global justice for victims, empowering them to seek recourse in countries like France or Germany when their own nations fall short.
Moreover, in light of shifting global dynamics, such as the potential re-election of Trump, I believe the EU can stand out but it must assert its influence by upholding its values, with justice being paramount among them. This underscores the significance of universal jurisdiction as a means to exercise justice on a global scale.
To learn about pathways to justice in front of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice for victims in Palestine :
Comments