Buenos Aires, Argentina — On the 50th anniversary of Argentina’s military coup, which led to one of the bloodiest dictatorships in South American history, the former prosecutor of Argentina’s so-called “Nuremberg Trial,” Luis Moreno Ocampo, argues that the country offers a key lesson for today’s global conflicts: violence should be confronted with justice, not war — otherwise, “it multiplies.”
In the 1970s, Argentina was battered by extreme political violence, with guerrilla groups and escalating state repression that intensified after the 1976 military coup led by General Jorge Rafael Videla. His military dictatorship carried out an illegal, nationwide campaign that included forced disappearances, torture, and the systematic theft of newborns. An estimated 30,000 people were disappeared, and around 500 babies were taken from detained parents, according to the human rights organization Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo.
In 1985, after the fall of the dictatorship, Moreno Ocampo served as a deputy prosecutor in the Trial of the Juntas, in which Argentina’s newfound democratic government prosecuted the leaders of the military junta for crimes against humanity.
The landmark trial set a precedent for the development of international criminal justice, later reflected in the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002, where Moreno Ocampo went on to serve as chief prosecutor.
In a conversation with Argentina Reports, Moreno Ocampo argues that Argentina’s experience stands as an exceptional case: a country that managed to confront violations to human rights without resorting to the logic of the “enemy” — which implies elimination without guarantees — but instead through a political consensus that led to a new method.
“Argentina showed that it is possible to confront the past with justice, not revenge,” Moreno Ocampo said.
Justice, not war, protects societies from violence
The creation of the ICC, in part, was meant to provide a mechanism in which countries could avoid the political limitations of the United Nations Security Council, upon which permanent members have veto power that often leads to gridlock on pressing conflicts.
Despite this body existing, many major global powers, including the United States, Russia and China, are not members, and increasingly, the former prosecutor laments, the world seems to be moving in the opposite direction.
“The ICC is like a global Wi-Fi. Some countries are connected, others are not,” he said.
In that context —marked by the fragmentation of the international order, large-scale wars such as those in Iran and Ukraine, and growing nuclear risk— war has once again become a tool to resolve conflicts.
From Afghanistan and Iraq to Ukraine, Gaza and now Iran, Moreno Ocampo argues that war is the “mother crime” that enables all others. Faced with violence that has once again become a response to terrorism and disputes between global actors, major powers are repeating a model that does not work.
“The way to protect a country against terrorist groups is not war —which generates more violence— but justice. And that is the lesson from Argentina,” he said.
For Moreno Ocampo, the problem is one of method. There are two ways to confront violence: to treat the violent actor as an enemy and eliminate them, or to investigate and judge them while respecting their rights. In 1985, Argentina chose the second path.
“It gave the military what they had not given their victims: a fair trial,” he said.
The return of war
Moreno Ocampo traces the return of war as a tool for resolving conflicts to the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when the United States decided to treat Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden not as a criminal to be prosecuted, but as a military target to be eliminated.
The result, he argues, was counterproductive. Bin Laden remained at large for years, and the war in Afghanistan ultimately failed.
Similar dynamics, he says, can be seen in Iraq and other conflicts.
“Every time the United States enters these wars, it loses. And yet, for different reasons, it cannot learn from that experience,” he said.
This logic, he adds, is also visible in current conflicts in the Middle East, where opposing projects seek to eliminate each other rather than coexist.
“When projects appear that aim to exclude or eliminate the other, that inevitably leads to war.”
The persistence of war, according to Moreno Ocampo, is also linked to the limits of the current international system —and is visible in today’s conflicts.
In the Middle East, he argues, opposing sides are trapped in mutually exclusive projects that leave no room for coexistence. “When actors seek to exclude or eliminate the other, that inevitably leads to war,” he said, pointing to the dynamics between Israel and Hamas.
After the October 7 attacks, he noted, there was broad international consensus in condemning Hamas — but the subsequent military response did not resolve the conflict and instead deepened the humanitarian crisis, while Hamas remains in power.
For Moreno Ocampo, this reflects a broader failure of method: war continues to be used where justice mechanisms exist but are not applied.
A warning from Argentina
In a world shaped by nuclear weapons, advanced technology and growing geopolitical tensions, Moreno Ocampo warns that continuing down this path could lead to a global catastrophe.
“War is a model that humanity has used for thousands of years. But in a world with atomic bombs and cyberattacks, it is no longer viable,” he said.
Echoing Albert Einstein, he added: “I don’t know how the Third World War will be fought, but the Fourth will be fought with sticks and stones.”
For Moreno Ocampo, Argentina’s experience remains relevant not only as a historical process, but as a possible model for the future.
“The world is returning to the logic of war to resolve conflicts, and that can lead us to a catastrophe.”
Featured image: Luis Moreno Ocampo
Image credit: luismorenoocampo.com