The ICC attempting warrants of arrest is a direct confrontation of impunity of alleged war crimes. It maintains that international law is equally to be applied as a method of making leaders responsible. Nevertheless, the task of issuing warrants against Israeli/Hamas leaders is very challenging. This reveals weaknesses of the court in terms of power against non-member states or actors that are protected.
This move puts Israel in a lot of trouble with the ICC and its allies. Israel severely opposes the court and its claims considering the warrants to be biased. This hostility harms diplomacy and promotes polarization of the surrounding nations concerning this conflict, which can eventually result in the discussions of sanctions.
This fragile ceasefire and hostage-negotiations are made difficult by the warrants. Leaders accused risk being arrested thus they are reluctant to participate internationally. This poses a challenge to mediators. Moreover, the political tensions that have been created because of the legal measures can end up causing hindrances to provision of much-needed humanitarian aid in order to the lack of cooperation at ground level.
Warrant hunting is a huge precedent in itself. It is a warning to even powerful countries by reminding them that even their allies can come under the spotlight of ICC due to their actions in Palestine which could be a deterrence to such misconduct. But it undermines the court in the long term should strong states be disobeyed without result and with impunity.
Symbolic hope exists in the form of warrants on justice to the Palestinians. Nevertheless, the use of Hamas to isolate the group on international grounds is also due to targeting. This has the potential to weaken them but does not instantly reduce the burdens of Palestinian civilians who suffered daily violence and deprivation during the war.
Conclusion
The warrants issued by the ICC present an immediate collision of politics and a nightmare to diplomacy, so this risks the aid and any peace activities. Their practical effect depends on enforcing them, although in symbolic terms they are quite effective in terms of accountability. In absence of the same, the court can end up looking ineffective. The move mainly brings out the interdependence of legal responsibility and a fixed conflict paradigm.
