On March 20, the “Global Justice: Historical Present, Imagined Futures Speaker Series” conducted its final event of the academic year with renowned researcher and legal practitioner Xabier Agirre Aranburu who spoke on international justice. This event was made possible by the William J. Cooper Foundation and moderated by Assistant Professor of Philosophy Sabeen Ahmed. Drawing from his extensive observation of and experience with investigating war crimes and human rights violations at the UN International Criminal Tribunal and the International Criminal Court, Agirre Aranburu delivered a compelling lecture through the lens of an eternal optimist, exploring the complex landscape of global legal accountability, and challenging audiences to critically examine the intersections of law, power, and social transformation.
Agirre Aranburu began by explaining his journey from starting as a student activist in País Vasco to becoming what he calls a “reluctant lawyer,” and a figure within the world of international justice and international criminal law.
Born in the aftermath of Franco’s regime in San Sebastian, Spain, Agirre Aranburu grew up learning not to trust the government and legal system, occupied with feelings of political disenfranchisement and distress. In this context, he became interested in the critical question of war, “How is it possible that something so horrible as war — organized violence, people killing each other — is accepted in society?” As a teenager, he joined social activist groups targeting conscription services. At seventeen, he was first arrested at a protest in the army recruitment center in San Sebastian and later went to trial after refusing to partake in mandatory military service as an act of civil disobedience. Facing potential conviction and imprisonment, he remained optimistic, marking the beginning of his lifelong fight.
“We have to trust our instinct. We have to trust that we’re doing the right thing through a deep, fundamental connection with the human rights of our people and that truth shall prevail. At this stage, it’s time to close your eyes and jump and trust that it will go well. And it did go well,” Agirre Aranburu said.
Agirre Aranburu then became a “reluctant lawyer,” which he described as being more interested in changing society than regulating it. Because of his background, he was surrounded by skepticism regarding the legal system, however, he warns against cynicism as opposed to self-criticism.
“I will quote Albie Sachs, one of the main lawyers of the African National Congress in the 80s and 90s. He would say, ‘With the law, you always have to be a skeptical, but you should not be cynical.’”
Sachs then illustrated one of the first of a number of contradictions that exist within the political system — practitioners who are progressive or activists are often observed as becoming key structural features of the same international legal system that they critique.
Sachs said, “It is somewhat contradictory to see someone who believes in civil disobedience become a worker of the justice system. But I would argue that this contradiction exists only on the surface. The silver lining — the connection — is another current: a deep commitment to true justice, rooted in a genuinely democratic understanding of equality among individuals and among peoples.”
Shifting from his personal experience that led him to the path of international justice, Agirre Aranburu moved into the origins of human rights and international law, correcting a common misperception regarding their Western roots. Utilizing an example of humanitarian law in the Mayan Rabinal Achí tradition, he told the story of the Lord of Rabinal, who condemns his soldiers for violating the laws of war by killing and destroying beyond what was commanded.
“First and foremost, the idea that human rights, the rule of law, and similar principles are a Western invention is simply false. This is a serious misperception — one that borders on racism — because principles of humanity and rules to protect the vulnerable exist in every culture across the world,” Agirre Aranburu said.
Ahmed further expanded on these ideas, noting that the critique of international law’s origins are not limited to a few scholars but central to a broader movement in post-colonial thought. She explained that many scholars working within the tradition of Third World approaches to international law have raised similar concerns about how the international legal system has evolved.
“It’s easy for us to imagine that international law is this modern, post-war phenomenon, and indeed, the contemporary international order comes into being in an era when formal empires were becoming destabilized and in the midst of decolonization. But international law has a very long genealogy that is inseparable from imperial expansion and colonial exploitation,” Ahmed said.
After clarifying these origins, Aranburu then connected these issues of humanitarian law to a second set of contradictions in historical events in humanitarian law — specifically World War II. During the Potsdam Agreement, while the Allies established war crimes trials to prosecute fascist atrocities, they simultaneously approved the mass deportation of millions of German civilians from various European countries. The justification was to prevent future conflicts by relocating German minority populations, but this action itself was a form of large-scale human rights violation.
“When we look at events and think, ‘There was something good, but then it went wrong,’ we often overlook a deeper truth. The so-called good thing already contained fundamental contradictions from the very beginning — not just minor limitations, but inherent flaws that were present from day one.”
When addressing this issue, Agirre Aranburu pointed out that flaws in international law have been present since the drafting of the Genocide Convention in 1948, particularly in how Palestinian experiences were marginalized. He highlighted that during the UN negotiations, Arab representatives from Syria and Egypt pushed to include “mass deportation” as a key element in the definition of genocide, a proposal that was directly tied to the mass expulsion of Palestinians. However, Western powers deliberately rejected this proposal, opting instead for a narrow definition of genocide. Noting the historical context of power dynamics, he underscored how the Holocaust became a ‘fundamental legitimizing theme for the winners’ and how the ‘special relationship between the US and Israel’ has consistently influenced international legal processes.
Despite facing potential sanctions and significant political pressure, Agirre Aranburu stressed the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) commitment to investigation, stating they will continue their work with ‘professional pride and professional integrity.’ He quoted a Holocaust survivor and judge who was one of the Palestine experts that supported their office: ‘This is a crime. Don’t tell me anything about biases. I am a Holocaust survivor, and I am noticing this case.’
Building on this, Agirre Aranburu reinforced the ICC’s unwavering stance and, once again, demonstrated his eternal tenacity, emphasizing, “If you are really serious about your job as a lawyer or a prosecutor, you will keep going, and you know perfectly well that sometimes you will get the heat from this side or from the other side, but we keep going.”
“Our position is that we have a job to do. We are not impressed. We are not afraid. We take it on board.”
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
