Marcus Vetter is a German documentarist with an extensive filmography of more than 20 movies. His latest creation War and Justice (co-directed with Michele Gentile, 2023) premiered during the 40th edition of the Munich Film Festival. Our senior writer Paul Risker described his work as “a conversation starter about the role of the ICC, providing insight into how Ocampo [the organisation’s chief prosecutor] and his colleagues have built the institution, drawing on the Nuremberg trials, Ocampo’s role in the 1985 Junta trial of the Argentinian dictatorship’s crimes against its own people, the ICC’s limitations and ambitions, and its future”.

Paul decided to ask Marcus a few questions about his project, and Marcus made some urgent and surprising revelations (such as a shocking declaration by Benjamin Netanyahu). Read on and find out more!

…

.

Paul Risker – In the film, Ocampo infers that the documentary has been many years in the making. How do you look back on the experience of War and Justice? What moments do you particularly remember, for better or worse?

Marcus Vetter – In 2009 we completed the film The Heart of Jenin [Marcus Vetter and Leon Geller] – a movie about a Palestinian father whose son was shot by Israeli soldiers and who instead of seeking revenge decides to donate his son’s organs to Israeli children. The chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo of The Hague saw the film at the Cinema for Peace Gala in Berlin. We were in the midst of renovating a movie theater in Jenin/Palestine and together with Ismael we were also shooting a documentary about Yael Armanet, an Israeli woman who lost her husband in a suicide bombing in Haifa and later goes to Jenin to find answers to her husband’s death. Three films, three stories about people trying to break the vicious circle of violence. That’s what I presented in the event in Berlin. The next day, Luis Moreno Ocampo invited me to his office and asked me if I could imagine making a film about the International Criminal Court. He said that the ICC was currently examining the extent to which Israel and also Hamas could be prosecuted for war crimes in the 2009 Gaza war. It was a very tempting offer and I told him that I could very well imagine it, but only on one condition: that he trusts us and that we can shoot behind normally closed doors. We never regretted the decision. And so, one of the very special moments was, when we were shooting with Ocampo in a taxi in New York and we were allowed to witness the moment when he decided to transfer the decision of whether Palestine is considered as a state to the United Nations Assembly who then later recognised Palestine as an observer state. So, in 2013 Palestine ratified the ICC and became a member state of the ICC. That is why today the ICC has jurisdiction over possible war crimes on both sides – we were essentially witnessing world history.

PR – When you first began shooting, did you have any specific intentions for the real-life story War and Peace would document?

MV – When began shooting in The Hague in 2009 we were taking a taxi to the court, but the taxi driver has never heard about the institution. Today, with the arrest warrants against Hamas leaders, Benjamin Netanyahu and President Putin the whole world suddenly is aware that the ICC exists. We were lucky enough that we were covering three chief prosecutors – Luis Moreno Ocampo, Fatou Bensouda and the current prosecutor Karim Khan. We covered as well the very first case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a Congolese warlord of the Hema ethnic group, who recruited child soldiers to kill the Lendus. The film follows the case until the verdict is handed down in 2012.

PR – In what ways did entering Ocampo’s world and witnessing the work of the ICC up close, open your eyes to the realities facing the ICC, and the scale of its ambition amidst the turbulence of the present day?

MV – This is a documentary that should not take sides. All wars lead to war crimes, as Ben Ferencz explains. That’s why Karim Khan and Ocampo are campaigning to the international community to take this situation, in which Putin has started a war of aggression in the most obvious way, as an opportunity to change the rules within the Rome Statute and hold heads of state who start wars of aggression to account. To do this, however, all countries – including the powerful – must first accept such a court and wars of aggression must be considered war crimes in themselves, as is Ben Ferenz’s position. And here, of course, it is also important to point out the double standards and to remind people that wars, including those waged by the USA, were not only waged for defensive purposes. Obama even said this in his speech for the Nobel Prize, that wars can be waged for humanitarian purposes under certain circumstances. Although we will also show in the film that the moral prerequisites for the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein’s nuclear arsenal were never found, the point is not to compare one situation with another, but to show why wars have unfortunately not yet been replaced by fair justice.

PR – People appear to have lofty expectations for the ICC, and yet are reluctant to acknowledge the limitations, specifically its jurisdiction. Are you reminding the audience that the Court is still at the point of being a dream or an experiment?

MV – I think all that comes to light in a scene with a taxi driver from Pakistan who was picking Ocampo up from the Schiphol airport in Amsterdam. The taxi driver in a conversation with Ocampo is opening the eyes to the audience why these double standards are clearly standing in the way of a court to be perceived by the whole world as a neutral and non biased institution. So, yes, the film is reminding us, that there is still a good way to go. But anyhow, the ICC may be the only alternative to war and the member states, 2/3 of the global south have it in there hand to change the Rome Statute, so that for example the ICC has jurisdiction over war of aggressions also committed by the US, China or Russia, even if these states did not recognize the ICC. Because so far both sides need to be member states of the ICC, the aggressor and the attacked country in order for the ICC being able to intervene in the case of war of aggression. And Ocampo badly wants this to be changed for the court to be perceived as a neutral and not politicized institution.

PR – An interesting debate arises between Ferencz and one of Ocampo’s team about complicity for those traumatised. It’s a brief moment, and you appear to pursue a broader conversation instead of focusing on specific aspects. Given the scale of the conversation around the subject, was there a need to take this approach to shape War and Justice as a conversation starter?

MV – The conversation is between Ben Ferencz and Joana Frivet about whether 10- to 15-year-old child soldiers are only victims or as well co-perpetrators. The scene is there to show the complexity of what is at stake. And even though all these people have worked with so much passion to get rid of impunity for state leaders, there is no easy way for justice. But, as Ben Ferencz says, even though the court would take a wrong decision, it is anyhow better than killing each other on the battlefield.

PR – War and Peace is undeniably timely and important given events in Ukraine and Palestine. What does this film bring to the conversation about these events that either adds to or challenges the traditional mainstream media’s reporting?

MV – There is a lot of discussion whether world institutions are needed or not. I think the film gives an insight to these discussions. With the timespan of 12 years the film is showing that the court depends a lot on the braveness of the chief prosecutors. We can read about powerful countries having threatened employees working for the ICC when they had investigated cases these mighty countries didn’t like. Karim Khan has lately taken bold decisions that were criticizsd a lot. We are at a key moment of history where it may be decided whether the court is being perceived as a powerful institution or as irrelevant .

PR – Since Karim Khan’s request for arrest warrants for the leaders of Hamas as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, what are your thoughts about how the mainstream news media covers and perceives the ICC?

MV – At the very beginning when the arrest warrants were issued I couldn’t believe my eyes that this really is happening. The film closes exactly with the question, that the world will watch carefully of how the court would react when Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he will wage a war against Hamas that generations will remember. Revenge begets revenge Ben Ferencz is saying. When Karim Khan issued the arrest warrants a good part of the media was fighting tooth and nails against the decision. The film however has such an objective stance that it gives in my eyes one of the most precious insights to all those questions as the true red line in the film is the decision of whether the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestine when Palestine was not yet considered as a state. It shows the complexity of a global court. Here is where films can act as a bridge to break the complexity down so that a layman can grasp what is at stake.

PR – One of the interesting aspects of the documentary is regarding the EU’s relationship with the ICC and possible American coercion. It draws to mind for me the fatal errors of The League of Nations, an unsuccessful version of the UN between the World Wars. In the ICC’s story, are we witnessing the recurring patterns of behaviour that have the international community stuck in a vicious cycle of violence? Can the ICC realistically break this?

MV – It will come to daylight the moment a country like Germany would be obliged to execute an arrest warrant for example against a prime minister of a country like Israel. Would they act on it or would they shy away and risk that the ICCs role they have supported all they way along would be destroyed. I think it is us the people that have it in their hands. That is why I think the film is so important. It is not anymore about wars that are far away and that are not affecting our daily life in a serious way. No, this time it is a decision about which path the world takes – the path of a global war with all its ramifications or the path of diplomacy backed by a justice system which is being perceived as more or less just.

PR – One of the ideas War and Justice discusses is that peace is reliant on justice, but one of the acknowledgements in the film, is how those that are guilty of war crimes don’t comprehend their wrongdoing. Hence, if one person’s justice is another person’s injustice, is peace an unrealistic aspiration or dream?

MV – Again, in my believe we should never give up on breaking the vicious circle of violence. I am working on a trilogy of films in Palestine (www.trilogy-of-hope.com) that will be released together with War and Justice. I am deeply convinced that if we the people rethink their possible support for war as an alternative solution we may alter the dangerous course we are about to embark. It is never too late. But yes, if the world goes to far, then the people who have experienced too much injustice will decide to fight back no matter what. We are at a cross road where people lost hope or are about to be convinced that there is only one solution: war. The sad thing is both sides are convinced of being treated unjustly. This is the real danger when we do not stop sleepwalking into war.

PR – War and Justice includes some harrowing content, from images of war to the torture of detainees by US Service personnel. It appears this footage us being used to alert us to the horrors of war, but to also make the case that a legal framework is necessary to hold to account even the peacekeepers, because innocence is the first casualty of war. Was this your intention?

MV – The Abu Ghraib torture photos are showing us that torture and violence leads to more violence and more atrocities. I remember after the 9/11 attacks it was openly discussed whether torture is legit to get to the masterminds of the attack. The pandora box was opened. ISIS was referring their brutality to those pictures of torture in the Abu Ghraib prison and here the vicious circle of horror starts. It is the plea of never opening the pandora box even though the wish for revenge is overwhelming us.

PR – Is filmmaking transformative, and where/how do you change as a person?

MV – Filmmaking, if well done, will open the hearts of the audience and facilitate us to overcome our own prejudice. It is dangerous however if we want to manipulate our audience with our ideas, because then it becomes propaganda. For the audience it may help to know a few films of a director because then you can better understand his thinking process.

…

.

Marcus Vetter is pictured at the top of this article, in a white shirt. The other images are stills of War and Justice.