LAST week, The Hague-based World Criminal Tribunal, also known as International Criminal Court (ICC) upheld justice, international law, and accountability by issuing the arrest warrants against Israel’s premier Benjamin Netanyahu, Gallantyoav and Hamas’ Deif for their alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), particularly the Gaza Strip. The ICC’s arrest warrants significantly underscore the importance of international criminal justice. The international community regards the ICC move as a milestone regarding international accountability of Israel’s government and military officials‘ atrocities in Gaza.
Background of the case proceedings: On 3 March 2021, the ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan announced the opening of the investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine. (This move was followed by Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision on 5 February 2021 that the Court could exercise its criminal jurisdiction in the Situation and, by majority that the territorial scope of this jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.) Subsequently, on 17 November 2023, the Office of the Prosecutor received a further referral of the Situation in the State of Palestine, from South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, and Djibouti, and on 18 January 2024, the Republic of Chile and the United Mexican State additionally submitted a referral to the Prosecutor with respect to situation in State of Palestine.
As per the Rome Statute of 1998, also known as the Rome Treaty, enforced on July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) holds jurisdiction over four main types of crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crimes of aggression. That said, the ICC Pre-Trail Chamber (PTC) — rejected Israel’s objections regarding applicability of its jurisdiction as the Court jurisdiction applies to the situation in Palestine where the alleged crimes comes under the Court’s mandate.
“The Chamber [PTC] ruled on two requests submitted by the Israel on 26 September 2024. In the first request, Israel challenged the Court’s jurisdiction over the Situation in the State of Palestine in general, and over Israeli nationals more specifically, on the basis of article 19(2) of the Statute. In the second request, Israel requested that the Chamber order the Prosecution to provide a new notification of the initiation of an investigation to its authorities under article 18(1) of the Statute. Israel also requested the Chamber to halt any proceedings before the Court in the relevant situation, including the consideration of the applications for warrants of arrest for Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Yoav Gallant, submitted by the Prosecution on 20 May 2024’’. Court’s rulings: The court assessed the evidence and found reasonable grounds to accept most of the allegations and charge them with two war crimes and three crimes against humanity. It added that the “alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.”When assessing the war crimes, the court “found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict” because there were reasonable grounds “to believe that during the relevant time, international humanitarian law related to international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine applied.”
The Court added, “This is because they are two High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and because Israel occupies at least parts of Palestine. The chamber also found that the law related to non-international armed conflict applied to the fighting between Israel and Hamas. The chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory.”
As regards the crime of starvation, the court’s findings rule, “The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October, 2023, to 20 May, 2024.” As for the crimes against humanity and murder, the Court holds, “There are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children, due to malnutrition and dehydration.”Implications of the ICC warrants: Now, the court impartiality upholds an end of the western-affiliated leaders’ impunity of war crimes. The ICC move (a-US-Israel bête noire) is highly unprecedented because by promoting accountability and ending impunity, we can help build more just and equitable societies (having no system of apartheids). This move profoundly underscores the world Criminal Court’s mandate of framing international responsibility for alleged crimes that harrowingly affect civilians during armed conflicts.
Thus, the ICC move is garnering support from various international communities and organizations advocating for accountability regarding Israel’s culpable crimes in Gaza .The 124-member ICC states have a binding responsibility to comply with the arrests warrants, this stance is also endorsed by EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell. Moreover, the effectiveness of the ICC warrants profoundly lies in three aspects. Firstly, it revitalizes the efficacy of international law, secondly it may help the western powers and international community to use its leverage to end the Gaza conflict and seek a durable peace resolution of the Palestinian—Israeli conflict, and finally, it may exert legal, moral pressure on political leaders to review their intrusive, invasive military strategies that violate international law, to avoid prosecution.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. He also deals with the strategic issues.
