Twenty-two years ago, as they were electing the first-ever chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, 78 countries unanimously cast their ballots in favor of one candidate: Luis Moreno Ocampo. The Argentine lawyer had gained global attention during his country’s historic Trial of the Juntas for his role in helping convict former military leaders responsible for torture, killings and disappearances during the dictatorship. This landmark trial later inspired an Oscar-nominated film.
In Moreno Ocampo’s new role, his mandate was to prosecute individuals — including heads of state — for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression, especially when national courts failed to act. Until his term ended in 2012, Moreno Ocampo led key investigations and issued arrest warrants against figures in Sudan, Libya and other conflict zones.
His tenure was not without controversy, but Moreno Ocampo’s successors at the ICC have faced even more intense pushback. Fatou Bensouda was sanctioned and surveilled for investigating alleged war crimes committed by the United States and Israel. Karim Khan, the current chief prosecutor, has faced threats and sanctions for seeking arrest warrants against Israeli leaders over alleged crimes in Gaza. Khan has currently stepped aside from the ICC during an ongoing investigation into alleged misconduct.
In an interview with Analyst News, Ocampo reflects on the court’s challenges and its future in an increasingly unstable world. He warns that the ICC itself — and the idea of global justice — may be in danger under today’s crumbling world order.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
You were the first person to be appointed as the world’s prosecutor, in a sense. How did that come about?
In 1983, my country, Argentina, became a democracy. At the time, I was teaching at the university and working as an assistant to the government’s chief legal advisor. Two years later, in 1985, the trial of the leading generals of the former military dictatorship began. The prosecutor knew me from university and was looking for support. Many had refused out of fear. I was 32. I was thrilled. I thought: Yes, yes, of course, yes. I accepted immediately. I thought: As long as democracy holds, I’m safe. If not, I’ll have to leave the country. I took up the post — and the rest is history.
Then, almost two decades later, in 2002, I parked my car in Buenos Aires. The Jordanian embassy in New York called. The ambassador was looking for a chief prosecutor for the new International Criminal Court. My name was at the top of the list because of the junta trial. I laughed. I was supposed to be a visiting professor at Harvard soon. I thought they would never appoint me. But I flew to New York. I met Prince Saeed, the Jordanian ambassador to the United Nations. He was leading the selection process for the chief prosecutor. We had a conversation. Four months later, I was appointed.
It was a great honor for me. I believed that the International Criminal Court could make a difference, just as the junta trial had once protected democracy in Argentina.
That was your idea. But what was the reality?
There is no political leadership at the global level. The presidents and chancellors — the U.S., Germany, France, China, Russia — are national leaders. But no one leads the world. I remember when the German Attorney General visited me. I explained my job to her and realized: Oh my God, I’m not independent at all — I’m isolated. And that was exactly the point. There was no global backing. The International Criminal Court was created to prosecute the worst crimes — but without political support. That was its strength, its beauty and its greatest challenge: How do you make such an institution work?
What shocked me most was the diplomacy. There is no real global interest in justice. I remember the Canadian Minister of Justice. She said kindly, “How can I help you?” I was moved, almost to tears — no one had ever asked that before. I asked her, “When you return to Ottawa, just walk across the street to the Foreign Ministry and explain the meaning of international law.” A little later, the legal advisor to the Canadian Embassy in The Hague said to me, with an impassive face, “Interesting suggestion, Mr. Prosecutor. In the next budget, you’ll get 10% less.” That’s how the system works. Lots of rhetoric — little help.
Were you able to achieve any success at all under these circumstances?
Yes, one of them was the arrest warrant against Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir for genocide. I knew that if I did my job, the court would be attacked. If I didn’t do it, the court would be worthless. So I did what my mandate required. I applied for the arrest warrant. And although many states urged me not to do so, they ultimately supported it.
I learned that the court can move states — not always, but sometimes. My job was to build the institution, define its policies, find staff and get it up and running. When I started, I had two employees. When I left, there were 300 from 92 countries.
I was appointed two months after the U.S.-led war in Iraq. President Bush was against the court. Even the judges feared it could soon be abolished. But we persevered. We defined our work, recruited the best people and opened the most important investigations. At first, the world was still stable. The U.S. and Russia demanded justice. Then came September 11.
China and the U.S. were not enthusiastic, but we did manage to get a U.N. Security Council resolution on the situation in Darfur. Libya was also unanimously referred to the Criminal Court — even with the votes of the U.S., Russia and China. During my nine years in office, the court became part of the international order.
So you are saying that after your term in office, the world became more complex. But there are people who ask why you indicted so many African heads of state — and not others?
The answer is simple. In 2001, there was a U.N. Security Council meeting on international crimes — and it focused almost exclusively on Africa. At that time, the most serious crimes falling within my jurisdiction were being committed in African countries. The only exception was Colombia. But in Colombia, the government itself launched investigations. Once national authorities take action, I cannot and should not interfere. That is why I focused on the African cases — because that is where the most serious crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court were being committed at the time.
I had no jurisdiction over Iraq, the U.S. or Sri Lanka — even though there were conflicts there. I was not a global prosecutor, but a prosecutor for those states that had ratified the Rome Statute [the international treaty that founded the court]. And within that framework, Congo and Uganda were the first cases. As for Libya and the NATO intervention, Libya was not a member of the International Criminal Court until 2011. It was only in 2011 that the U.N. Security Council decided — unanimously — to assign me to the case.
Imagine that: Russia, China, the U.S. and India acting together to enable justice in Libya. That was the world I worked in. I was lucky. There were conflicts, yes, but the geopolitical situation was favorable for justice.
But that changed. I left office in 2012, just as the world order began to crumble.
Your successors didn’t have it easy: surveillance, threats, sanctions and blackmail. You didn’t experience that?
I never felt seriously threatened during my time there. Hatred was not a major problem. When I traveled to conflict zones, I always had a large security team with me. I wasn’t worried about my reputation either. As a prosecutor, you are attacked — that’s part of the job. But we managed to gain the support we needed for our work.
Fatou Bensouda had a much harder time as my successor — especially in the Israel-Palestine case. I myself dealt with the conflict for three years, but at that time Palestine was not a recognized member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and therefore could not formally file a case. After the Gaza War in 2009, the Palestinian Minister of Justice nevertheless approached me and began briefing me regularly. Meanwhile, Palestine pursued recognition as a state at the diplomatic level, with success. In 2012, it was recognized as an observer state by the U.N., and in 2015, it joined the ICC.
In 2018, Palestine officially requested an investigation, whereupon Fatou Bensouda requested that proceedings be opened. When Karim Khan took office in 2021, the investigation was already underway. After Oct. 7, 2023, Khan could no longer back down. The jurisdiction was clear: The Hamas attacks originated in Gaza, and the Israeli counterstrikes also took place on Palestinian territory. This meant that the events fell entirely within the jurisdiction of the court.
I had all the tools I needed to do my job back then, but the world has become more complicated and hostile — that’s why the Criminal Court is fighting harder today.
“I had all the tools I needed to do my job back then, but the world has become more complicated and hostile — that’s why the ICC is fighting harder today.”
“Fighting” is putting it mildly. One gets the impression that the Criminal Court is already on its deathbed.
No, no — the International Criminal Court will not disappear. That could have happened in my day, but not today. It is now firmly established — the building in The Hague alone cost over 100 million euros. Institutions like this are not simply closed down. What is at stake today is not the court’s survival, but its relevance. And that depends heavily on how national actors behave. I always say: My best case was the one I never had. The mere possibility of an investigation was enough to trigger political and legal changes on the ground.
In other cases, such as the arrest warrant against Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, it was more difficult: He traveled around the world to show that he was ignoring the court, but in reality he was very afraid. The arrest warrant was a burden; it weakened his position. In the end, Bashir was overthrown in a coup and imprisoned. There were serious discussions about extraditing him to The Hague. The impact of the arrest warrant was particularly evident in South Africa. When Bashir was invited to a summit, a South African court ordered his arrest; he had to flee secretly through the back exit.
Such arrest warrants create pressure. They make it clear that even powerful people suddenly need political protection. Netanyahu publicly thanks Trump for his support. In the Philippines, former President Duterte is now in prison because an agreement with his successor Marcos fell through.
The court continues to exist. Its relevance is evident on a case-by-case basis. As long as judges and prosecutors do their job, there is no cause for concern.
The ICC’s future is also a question of funding. The U.K. recently announced plans to cut its contributions. The U.S. has imposed sanctions. Israel calls the court a farce. Hungary has withdrawn from the ICC. And the German chancellor is openly flirting with the idea of inviting an internationally wanted head of government like Netanyahu.
All this just shows the importance of the International Criminal Court. It stirs up controversy — and that is a sign of its effectiveness. At a time when war is raging in Ukraine and people are being killed in Israel and Palestine, it would be a bad sign if the court were not under attack, because that would mean it was not doing its job. The U.S. and Israel are not marginal players.
Hungary’s withdrawal is a political decision — it has nothing to do with a lack of legal basis. Hungary stands firmly alongside Netanyahu and Trump. But 124 signatory states remain. And that is what counts.
The German chancellor did express criticism, but was then briefed — and did not repeat his statements. Because one thing is obvious: if Netanyahu were to visit Germany, a judge would order his arrest, just as happened with Bashir in South Africa. Putin did not travel to Brazil or South Africa, but to Mongolia. Even then, he had to offer something in return: trade agreements, financial commitments. His trip came at a high political price.
This shows that the reality is complex and multifaceted. And the fact that someone like Donald Trump is attacking the International Criminal Court head-on only underscores its relevance.
Don’t you see it as a serious setback that Karim Khan is under investigation and has had to take leave?
Yes, of course it’s a setback — and at the same time a new test for the International Criminal Court. The U.S. is currently trying to instrumentalize the same court. It has imposed sanctions on the prosecutor that are otherwise used against terrorists and drug lords — just because he is doing his job.
The absurd thing about this is that U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham cheered when the arrest warrant was issued for Putin but was outraged when it came to Netanyahu. For the United States, justice is good — as long as it only affects enemies, not friends.
“U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham cheered when the arrest warrant was issued for Putin but was outraged when it came to Netanyahu. For the United States, justice is good — as long as it only affects enemies, not friends.”
This is precisely why the conflict with the U.S. shows that the court is acting consistently. But many who actually want justice do not understand this properly. And what is missing is broad public support. The ICC is complicated, abstract and difficult to communicate. Perhaps this interview will even help more people to say: The criminal court deserves protection.
It was historic when Karim Khan filed his requests for arrest warrants. Never before had a sitting head of government of a Western-allied democracy like Netanyahu been indicted. Did you foresee that something like this would happen one day?
What I see is a development in stages. When I requested the arrest warrant for President al-Bashir back then, it was a huge step. Many people asked: How can you indict a sitting head of state? But he was “only” the president of Sudan – not a geopolitical heavyweight.
Then my successor, Fatou Bensouda, announced that she would investigate possible crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including systematic torture. This had been admitted by the CIA itself, and even the U.S. Congress had confirmed that systematic torture had taken place in Afghanistan. So the allegations were by no means unfounded. In response, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Bensouda. In response to her investigations in Palestine, Bensouda was monitored and threatened by the Israeli Mossad.
Then came Karim Khan. He requested an arrest warrant for President Putin — a sitting head of state and member of the U.N. Security Council. An enormous step. And he went further, now also against a prime minister like Netanyahu. I see this as a court that is consistently fulfilling its duty.
There is a narrative circulating that Karim Khan requested the arrest warrants to divert attention from allegations against himself. What is your response to that?
I am not familiar with the allegations against him in detail, but as a lawyer, I say he deserves a fair trial — and he accepts that. Netanyahu, on the other hand, does not [accept that he should have a trial]. For me, both are innocent until a court decides otherwise. Khan is facing trial, Netanyahu is not.
The narrative that Khan only issued the arrest warrant against Netanyahu to divert attention from his own allegations is simply false. What I see is that Karim Khan has been investigating intensively since 2024. In January 2024, he handed over the evidence to a group of independent experts, including professor Theodor Meron, a Holocaust survivor and former legal adviser to the Israeli government.
In March, Khan informed the U.S. of his planned course of action. Only then, in April, did the allegations against him suddenly surface — at the very moment when it became clear that he would take action. This suggests that the accusations were a reaction, not a cause.
In May 2024, the president of the signatory states commented on Karim Khan by name — even though there had been no official complaint, only media reports. A highly unusual move, isn’t it?
That is a clear war crime. Even Israeli friends have told me privately: “There’s no doubt about it — it’s clear.” You can’t starve civilians to win a war. That’s why the Khan case must not be used as a pretext to distract from the massive and obvious crimes against 2 million people in Gaza.
The signatory states are often small countries, some of which are under strong U.S. influence. I suspect that many of their ambassadors were pressured to take action. But regardless of whether Karim Khan is guilty of anything or not, it has nothing to do with the allegations against Prime Minister Netanyahu. And what is remarkable is that the main charge against Netanyahu does not relate to the bombings, but to the deliberate starvation of the civilian population in Gaza.
“You can’t starve civilians to win a war. That’s why the Khan case must not be used as a pretext to distract from the massive and obvious crimes against 2 million people in Gaza.”
If you were chief prosecutor today, what would you do in his place?
I think Karim Khan has done everything right. From the outset, Khan has tried to get a comprehensive picture. First, he traveled to Egypt to report on Gaza from there because he was denied access. He visited Israel, spoke with victims, traveled to Ramallah and made it clear that starvation is a war crime — and that no one should be surprised if he takes action. He did the same thing before with Azerbaijan: he warned, documented and acted transparently.
Then, in December 2023 and January 2024, he showed great tact. He organized an independent panel of six high-ranking legal experts, all with excellent reputations. They examined the evidence and gave him the green light.
What more could he have done? Three independent judges reviewed the applications as well. Some charges were rejected, but the majority were upheld. That is why I say that Karim Khan has done his job very well. And I respect his decision to step down now — so that no one can claim he is using new cases in Venezuela or Palestine to protect himself.
Recently, the U.S. imposed severe sanctions on the very judges you mentioned. What does that say about the world we live in?
The problem is not the court. The problem is that states are once again starting to wage war to assert their interests. But war is incompatible with our times. That is where the real crisis lies.
Are you familiar with Fortnite? Fortnite is a video game in which 100 people play and the winner has to kill everyone else. So by definition, the winner is alone. And that’s what the world looks like today. The U.S. has no plan that includes cooperating with China. Many in the U.S. believe that the only solution to the China problem is war. That’s Fortnite. A war between the U.S. and China would be the end of the world. That’s what I see.
“Fortnite is a video game in which 100 people play and the winner has to kill everyone else. So by definition, the winner is alone. And that’s what the world looks like today.”
We have great means of communication today; it’s much easier than it used to be. We need to involve people so they understand what’s happening. And we need to educate on a large scale. We need to make people understand — we need to explain simply and clearly why what is happening in Gaza is not just happening in Gaza. It affects me — whether I live in Uruguay, Malibu or Buenos Aires. What is happening in Gaza is global. What is happening in Ukraine is global.
We live in a global community. We have to build it. We have to raise awareness among people. And we need experts to develop the new institutions we need to be able to live together.
Do you think your view would be accepted by other heads of state and government around the world?
I see myself as part of a final experiment within an old system that is based almost exclusively on nation states. My job is to help the next generation develop new tools to connect institutions and make global solutions possible.
Will I succeed? Perhaps not. But I’m trying. We can’t do it alone. We need many. Millions. Think of aviation: a global industry, perfectly coordinated, with almost no accidents. Why shouldn’t it be possible to create a similar system to prevent wars? As humanity, we have overcome colonialism. We have abolished slavery. We can do this, too.
I was the first truly independent global official. People at the United Nations are dependent on states — I wasn’t. I’ve seen things that remain hidden from others. And that’s why I say to myself: Before I die, I want to help pass on this knowledge. I want others to understand what I’ve seen. That takes away my frustration.
I no longer have an official title. But I can decide for myself where to focus my energy. And everyone can do that. We all have our own agenda. We can shape it. Protecting our children doesn’t just mean sending them to good schools. It also means protecting them from a dangerous, dysfunctional world. And now is the time to do it. It’s a special time, a time when we can fix the world.
