Callamard spells out the practical implications: “The International Criminal Court should consider preliminary investigation into atrocity crimes against refugees and migrants where there are reasonable grounds that such crimes have taken place and the jurisdictional requirements of the court have been met.” It is particularly out of the ordinary for a UN body to recommend to the International Criminal Court what cases it should consider, but that is exactly what Callamard has chosen to do
[...]
Make no mistake, the effort to move international criminal justice from war to migration is not yet another attempt to expand the gamut of a cash-strapped and inefficient court. It is, rather, an attempt to shift political priorities, in the Court and outside of it, away from looking for “monsters” committing spectacular violence and towards addressing increasingly normalized suffering. The very “banality” of these crimes, we argue, is a testament to their gravity and the necessity of their prosecution.
Nor should this shift end with the focus on crimes committed against migrants. With the results of climate change recently made visible in Puerto Rico and California, the fight of those hit hardest by climate change-inducing emissions is only beginning. A failure to address these new priorities today will be extremely dangerous, and reinforce the darkest of narratives for the 21st century.
To paraphrase sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, it will invite a reality in which one part of humanity will cast another part’s lives to waste. On the other hand, new priorities, including accountability on migration issues, will better reflect the International Criminal Court’s basic mandate: to punish crimes “of interest to the international community as a whole.”
