The International Criminal Court is seeking the arrest warrants on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over the October 7 attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.
The CNN headline is a bit misleading. It’s not the International Criminal Court as a whole that is seeking these arrest warrants but the ICC’s chief prosecutor Karim Khan. The judges have yet to decide on these warrants.
[Side note: This is the same kind of lazy journalism that uses terms like EU chief or EU leader interchangeably for the President of the European Commission (Ursula von der Leyen) and the President of the European Council (Charles Michel). If this was limited to a short headline, I could excuse it, but CNN continues with the same wording in the first sentence of the article: “The International Criminal Court is seeking arrest warrants for …” which is absolutely unnecessary, even if CNN clarifies things later.]
It’s part of the process. Now the request is before judges who will decide whether or not to issue the arrest warrants. For reference, when an ICC prosecutor asked for an arrest warrant for Vladmir Putin, it took a couple months for the judges to decide and then issue the warrant.
I know nothing about the process. How can a decision take months? What else are they doing? Are there counter arguments or something happening in the meantime?
I think that’s a distinction without a difference. How would the ICC seek an arrest warrant if not by having the chief prosecutor submit one? If the court had approved it, the title would be “arrest warrant issued by ICC”.
The CNN headline is a bit misleading. It’s not the International Criminal Court as a whole that is seeking these arrest warrants but the ICC’s chief prosecutor Karim Khan. The judges have yet to decide on these warrants.
[Side note: This is the same kind of lazy journalism that uses terms like EU chief or EU leader interchangeably for the President of the European Commission (Ursula von der Leyen) and the President of the European Council (Charles Michel). If this was limited to a short headline, I could excuse it, but CNN continues with the same wording in the first sentence of the article: “The International Criminal Court is seeking arrest warrants for …” which is absolutely unnecessary, even if CNN clarifies things later.]
I’ve always considered CNN to stand for Clearly Not News
Edit - the BBC headline starts “ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of…”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ggpe3qj6wo
Ok, this is very interesting. How is it he took this initiative? Actually, is it an initiative or part of the process?
It’s part of the process. Now the request is before judges who will decide whether or not to issue the arrest warrants. For reference, when an ICC prosecutor asked for an arrest warrant for Vladmir Putin, it took a couple months for the judges to decide and then issue the warrant.
Yeah, the process is slow but thorough (as it should be since these are among the most difficult cases in existence).
Thank you, good to know!
I know nothing about the process. How can a decision take months? What else are they doing? Are there counter arguments or something happening in the meantime?
The judges have to read and verify the documents they got for this case. This takes some weeks to months.
And good thing Putin is rotting in a prison cell right now.
hopefully his helicopter will crash into the foggy mountains or his train to china/north korea will derail
Trains do not derail in North Korea. It is forbidden.
Modern Journalism, and I use that term loosely, at work. Once you notice these kinds of misleading to incorrect headlines you can’t stop seeing them.
I think that’s a distinction without a difference. How would the ICC seek an arrest warrant if not by having the chief prosecutor submit one? If the court had approved it, the title would be “arrest warrant issued by ICC”.