Dutch MP Isa Kahraman meets ICC Prosecutor Khan to address international justice challenges and push for Islamic State tribunal

THE HAGUE — This week, Member of Parliament in the Netherlands Isa Kahraman (Nieuw Sociaal Contract, NSC) met with Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Karim Khan to discuss the current state of international and the Court’s ongoing investigations.

In a post on Facebook, Kahraman indicated he also discussed the obstacles facing the Court and international justice, specifically Hungary’s decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute establishing the Court and the German Chancellor’s statements about ignoring the arrest warrants issued against Israeli officials.

Also discussed were the crimes committed by the Islamic State (ISIS) against Yezidis, Christians, and other communities in Syria and Iraq. Kahraman stated that he explored with Khan the ICC’s ability to prosecute ISIS fighters who have pleaded guilty to these atrocities.

In a separate post on X, formerly Twitter, Kahraman said that he had met with MP in Sweden Yusuf Aydin (Kristdemokraterna, KD) during a personal trip to the country. The two discussed the situation in the Middle East and Sweden’s possible role in supporting the establishment of an ISIS tribunal.

Tijdens mijn familiebezoek in Zweden had ik de gelegenheid om Christen-Democratisch parlementslid Yusuf Aydin te ontmoeten. We hebben gesproken over de situatie in het Midden-Oosten en de mogelijke rol van Zweden in het ondersteunen van de oprichting van een IS-tribunaal. pic.twitter.com/ky5UhrwY69

— Isa Kahraman (@isakahraman) August 13, 2024

Kahraman’s pursuit of justice for the crimes committed by ISIS align with the stated policy program of the NSC, which includes the following statement:

“We are in favor of an international tribunal to try [ISIS] members and will propose to set this up in an international context. [ISIS] committed genocide and the perpetrators should be prosecuted if they are in the Netherlands. This group should be denied the right to family reunification.”

The recent debate over prosecuting Islamic State members in international courts is set against a complex backdrop of legal, political, and humanitarian concerns. Over the past few years, European states and international legal experts have increasingly questioned whether traditional domestic prosecutions are sufficient to address the crimes committed by ISIS fighters. There is mounting pressure to create an international judicial mechanism — modeled perhaps on the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda or even through the ICC — that can effectively handle the multifaceted nature of these offenses, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Evolving Models of Accountability

Advocates for an international tribunal argue that a “Nuremberg moment” is needed for the atrocities committed by ISIS. Proponents, including leading figures in international human rights, believe that such a tribunal would not only provide a more comprehensive platform for prosecuting foreign fighters but also help debunk the ideological propaganda that underpinned ISIS’s rise. Proposals have ranged from establishing a mixed tribunal in Iraq — with both international and local judges — to even trying perpetrators in Europe, where concerns about fair trial conditions and the death penalty loom large. This debate reflects the urgent need to balance expedient justice with the principles of universal human rights and due process.

Challenge of Regional and Domestic Limitations

In practice, domestic prosecutions in Iraq and by repatriating states have encountered significant hurdles. Trials under anti-terrorism laws, while faster, often do not capture the full scope of ISIS’s international crimes, such as the systematic genocide against the Yezidi community. Critics argue that by focusing exclusively on terrorism-related charges, states risk sidelining the critical voices of victims and undermining the imperative to document and address crimes that carry profound historical and social significance. This shortfall fuels calls for international oversight that can integrate broader evidence of atrocities, thereby ensuring that victims’ experiences — particularly those of the Yezidi people — are not lost in political and legal technicalities.

Jurisdictional and Political Impediments

The ICC has been highlighted as a potential avenue for seeking justice, yet its mandate and operational constraints pose considerable challenges. Jurisdictional limits, the politicization of international criminal proceedings, and the lack of a dedicated enforcement mechanism mean that any attempt to try ISIS fighters at the ICC would be fraught with complications. Nevertheless, legal scholars stress that if the alternative is impunity for crimes that continue to haunt communities in Syria, Iraq, and beyond, then international justice institutions must at least attempt to overcome these hurdles. This argument has been bolstered by recent legal developments, such as the conviction of an ISIS fighter in Germany on genocide charges — a historic first that signals both progress and the persistent challenges of prosecuting such crimes domestically.

Broader Quest for Justice

At its core, the discussion reflects a broader struggle over how the international community responds to mass atrocities. For the Yezidi and Christian communities, whose suffering has been repeatedly ignored or inadequately addressed in the aftermath of past persecutions, an international tribunal or an expanded role for the ICC represents not just legal accountability, but also symbolic recognition of their enduring trauma. This multifaceted approach would aim to confront state complicity and the limitations of existing legal frameworks — pressuring national governments to enact robust legislation that criminalizes international crimes like genocide. Ultimately, the debate about trying ISIS fighters in international courts is less about selecting one jurisdiction over another and more about ensuring that justice, in its fullest sense, prevails over impunity and political expediency.