Can the PA Ratify the Rome Statute? (A Response to Eugene)

Can the PA Ratify the Rome Statute? (A Response to Eugene)

As Eugene notes in today’s guest post, the Palestinian Authority (PA) appears to have decided to ratify the Rome Statute. I’ll believe it when I see it: the PA has threatened to ratify before, only to back down at the last moment. But could it? Most observers have assumed it could, but Eugene disagrees. I think his bottom line may well be right, as I will explain at the end of this post. But I have problems with other aspects of it.

To begin with, let’s dispense with Eugene’s claim that Abbas’s lack of control has an upside for him, because it “prevents him from being held responsible for the war crimes there. If he does control the territory, and has allowed it to be a rocket launching base for years, he would be in trouble.” Abbas has neither de jure nor de facto effective control over the members of the groups (especially Hamas) that are responsible for the rocket attacks on Israel. Nor does it seem likely that he would be part of the military chain of command in a Fatah-Hamas unity government. So whatever the state of Palestine’s responsibility for the rocket attacks might be, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Abbas would ever be held individually criminally responsible for them — now or in the future.

I also think that Eugene is overreading the OTP’s rejection of Mohammed Morsi’s attempt to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction. In particular, I think he is eliding the difference between two different concepts of “effective control”: for purposes of determining the government of a state, and for purposes of determining whether part or all of a state’s territory is belligerently occupied. Here is the relevant paragraph of the ICC press release concerning the decision:

In accordance with the legal test of “effective control,” the entity which is in fact in control of a State’s territory, enjoys the habitual obedience of the bulk of the population, and has a reasonable expectancy of permanence, is recognized as the government of that State under international law. Application of that test, on both the date that the purported declaration was signed and the date it was submitted, lead to the conclusion that Dr Morsi was no longer the governmental authority with the legal capacity to incur new international legal obligations on behalf of the State of Egypt. The information available indicates that, at all material times, the applicants did not exercise effective control over any part of Egyptian territory, including on the date the declaration was signed. Nor would it be consistent with the “effective control” test to have one putative authority exercising effective control over the territory of a State, and the other competing authority retaining international treaty-making capacity.

As the paragraph indicates, the OTP relied on effective control to determine which of two rival domestic Egyptian entities represented the government of Egypt. In that context, the OTP quite rightly decided that “the entity which is in fact in control of a State’s territory, enjoys the habitual obedience of the bulk of the population, and has a reasonable expectancy of permanence, is recognized as the government of that State under international law.” Morsi lost under that test, because his claimed failed all three conditions.

That concept of effective control has little to do with the concept of effective control in the law of occupation. Effective control in the latter context determines whether the law of occupation applies; it does not determine who the sovereign is in the occupied state. On the contrary, one state’s effective control over the territory of another state does not transfer sovereignty from the government of the occupied state to the occupying state; the government in the occupied state remains the occupied state’s government, even if it loses some of its powers of governance for the duration of the (ostensibly temporary) occupation.

I see no reason, therefore, why Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and possible occupation of Gaza would have any impact on the OTP’s decision to accept or reject the Palestinian Authority’s ratification of the Rome Statute. Even if the state of Palestine is completely occupied by Israel — which Israel obviously rejects — the government of Palestine is still the government of Palestine. Indeed, the only way that wouldn’t be true is if the state of Palestine suffered debellatio, understood as the complete destruction of a state’s sovereignty through conquest. If that were the case, then Israel would be the government of Palestine and would be entitled (exclusively) to make decisions on its behalf. That was the situation after World War II: because of the debellatio of the German state, the Allies, via the Control Council, exercised supreme legislative authority in Germany as a condominium. But that is hardly the case in Palestine, as both sides agree. (And in any case, the concept of debellatio may well have fallen into desuetude.)

All that said, I agree with Eugene’s claim that the Palestinian Authority may not qualify as the government of Palestine — at least without the inclusion of Hamas. According to Eugene, “Hamas came to power in a coup against Abbas’s government, and since the ‘statehood’ of Palestine, the latter has never exercise ‘effective control’ over the area. Indeed, the Hamas authorities in Gaza, such as Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, dispute Abbas’s standing as president.” That’s an inaccurate description of the situation: Hamas was democratically elected by Palestinians in 2006, but was prevented from governing by Fatah until it seized control of Gaza in the 2007 civil war. Hamas’s election, however, only strengthens Eugene’s point, because it indicates that the Palestinian Authority may well have a Morsi problem if it attempts to ratify the Rome Statute without Hamas’s consent. The Palestinian Authority fails all of the elements of the OTP’s “effective control” test in the context of rival governments: it does not control all of the state of Palestine, it does not enjoy the “habitual obedience of the bulk of the population,” and it does not have “a reasonable expectancy of permanence.”

Nor, for that matter, does Hamas — for similar reasons. So it may well be that only a unity government between Fatah and Hamas, such as the one that Israel desperately tried to undermine prior to its invasion of Gaza, is competent to ratify the Rome Statute. Whether the Palestinians will still be able to form such a unity government remains to be seen.

Topics
Courts & Tribunals, Featured, Foreign Relations Law, International Criminal Law, International Human Rights Law, Middle East, National Security Law, Organizations
Notify of
Hostage
Hostage

Response…All that said, I agree with Eugene’s claim that the Palestinian Authority may not qualify as the government of Palestine — at least without the inclusion of Hamas. You both are obscuring the fact that the Justice Minister who filed the most recent declaration and complaint with the ICC was sworn in on 2 June 2014 as part of the new Unity Government backed by both the PLO and Hamas. Many reliable sources, including Haaretz, USA Today and Al Jazeera, reported that Netanyahu and the Israeli Security Cabinet used the kidnapping of the Israeli teens in Area C as an excuse to launch the biggest crackdown in a decade on Hamas in order to discredit or breakup the new Palestinian Unity Government. The IDF deliberately violated the cease fire agreements by killing demonstrators and rearresting prisoners and lawmakers who had been released as part of the previous agreements between Israel, Hamas and the PLO. The Associated Press reported on the new Unity Cabinet: “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas swears in unity government: RAMALLAH, West Bank — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas swore in a unity government on Monday, taking a major step toward ending a crippling territorial and political split with the… Read more »

Hostage
Hostage

Response…A “declaration and complaint” is not, to the best of my knowledge, ratification.

The The former Prosecutor explained that situation in his last update report to the United Nations:

4. The jurisdiction of the Court is not based on the principle of universal jurisdiction: it requires that the United Nations Security Council (article 13(b)) or a “State” (article 12) provide jurisdiction. Article 12 establishes that a “State” can confer jurisdiction to the Court by becoming a Party to the Rome Statute (article 12(1)) OR BY MAKING AN AD HOC DECLARATION ACCEPTING THE COURT’S JURISDICTION (ARTICLE 12(3)). [Emphasis added]

The last time I checked, adopting ad hoc amendments to the Rome Statute wasn’t one of the powers delegated to the Prosecutor by the contracting state parties.

Michael Kearney
Michael Kearney

Treaty ratification under Palestinian Authority law is a nod from Mahmoud Abbas. Police state or be like Gaza is Israel’s offer, and he is choosing both.

Hostage
Hostage

Response…I have seen nothing that indicates the Palestinian Authority has officially filed a declaration with the Court accepting its jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis. There’s actually no judicial determination that says the existing Article 12(3) declaration wasn’t “validly filed” in 2009. The Prosecutor simply claimed that was the case. In 2009 the Justice Minister of Palestine provided proof that Palestine was recognized as a state by 67 countries and had bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe. See Today’s Zaman, “ICC prosecutor considers ‘Gaza war crimes’ probe” , 10 March 2009 http://goo.gl/NytsQ1 The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and obligations determined by international law, like those outlined in the VCLT. Article 35 of the VCLT, TREATIES PROVIDING FOR OBLIGATIONS FOR THIRD STATES stipulates that “An obligation arises for a third State from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend the provision to be the means of establishing the obligation and the third State expressly accepts that obligation in writing. The authors of the Rome Statute agreed to allow non-member states to file an ad… Read more »

Hostage
Hostage

Response…The most recent communication was filed by a French lawyer ostensibly on behalf of the Justice Minister, but press reports make it clear that the communication asks the OTP to investigate only Israeli crimes — which means it is not an ad hoc declaration, which cannot be so limited.

I’m not implying that a state party can use a territorial declaration to limit the Court’s jurisdiction or that an Article 12(3) declaration can be used by a non-member for that purpose. In fact, I don’t believe that the Court is necessarily bound by some of the stipulations contained in initial referrals from the UN Security Council in that regard.

On the other hand, once a declaration is in force, I don’t believe that a victim state has to conform to something like the Negroponte Doctrine and do a balancing act to file its own criminal complaint(s). It’s a given that the Prosecutor can investigate any additional allegations received in communications from others or derived from public news reports.

shmuel
shmuel

I would suggest you to give a look to these two:

1) http://justsecurity.org/5199/timeline-palestine-icc/

(to better clarify some aspects about ICC & Palestine)

2) http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.608906

(to understand the roots of the Gaza issue)

Rebekah Wolf
Rebekah Wolf

Hamas agreed to the unity government which was sworn in in June. Thus, Hamas’ approval of treaty ratification is no more necessary than any other individual Palestinian political party as such. The PNA under Mahmoud Abbas has already acceded to several treaties, which has been accepted by the Swiss, Dutch and UN as depositaries. The obstacle to ratification is not based on Hamas’ approval, but rather threats from the U.S. government to withhold aid if they do accede.

Hostage
Hostage

Response…You can make those arguments all you want, but the OTP has rejected the 2009 declaration — both Moreno-Ocampo and Bensouda — and there is no procedure in the Rome Statute that allows that decision to be appealed to the Pre-Trial Chamber. So the 2009 declaration is a dead letter. You can repeat that argument, but there’s nothing in the Rome Statute or Rule 44 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure that empowers the Prosecutor to “kill” an Article 12(3) declaration. Ocampo and Bensouda have repeatedly misstated the Practice of the UN with respect to Palestine’s legal status in order to delay initiation, prosecution or trial of cases. Nothing prevents the Court from applying the relevant treaty law at any time in accordance with Article 21 of the Statute. Where appropriate, Article 21 says the applicable law includes enforcement of the Court’s rules of procedure and “the applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law” – for example, the VCLT. There’s every reason to believe on the basis of VCLT Articles 35-37 that the Prosecutor cannot unilaterally kill an Article 12(3) declaration. A written referral of a situation to the Prosecutor (Rule 45) is a completely separate issue.… Read more »

Hostage
Hostage

Response…Hamas agreed to the unity government which was sworn in in June. Thus, Hamas’ approval of treaty ratification is no more necessary than any other individual Palestinian political party as such. … I think Hamas would be crazy to agree … The Hamas leaders and legislators that aren’t already in an Israeli jail or targeted for extra-judicial killing tend to express a cavalier attitude on the subject of the ICC. FYI, Hamas submitted two follow up reports on the Goldstone mission findings of fact that were panned as an attempted white wash by the UNHRC panel of experts, AI, HRW, and the PNA under Mahmoud Abbas: 1) Status of the implementation of the recommendations of the International Fact-Finding Mission Report on the Israeli aggression on Gaza 12/2008-1/2009, submitted on 2 February 2010, and 2) Report on the implementation of the recommendations of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the situation in Gaza, submitted on 28 July 2010. At the time, Mohammed Faraj al-Ghul, the Justice Minister in the Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip responded by saying: “We ask the United Nations to transfer the matter [the Goldstone report findings] to the ICC so that the Zionist war criminals can be… Read more »

Hostage
Hostage

Response…The obstacle to ratification is not based on Hamas’ approval, but rather threats from the U.S. government to withhold aid if they do accede.

It’s not just the USA, the British Foreign Office Minister responsible for the ICC resigned in disgust and cited pressure from the British government on Abbas as one of the reasons:

The Tory peer told HuffPost UK that one of the reasons she resigned on Tuesday morning, despite the signing of yet another temporary ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, was because she wanted to see those who are alleged to have committed war crimes over the past four weeks, both in Gaza and in Israel, held to account – but did not believe that the British government would support that process. “As the minister for the International Criminal Court, I’ve spent the last two and a half years helping to promote, support and fund the ICC. I felt I could not reconcile this with our continued pressure on the Palestinian leadership not to turn to the ICC to seek justice.” http://goo.gl/lCB12O

Ben
Ben

Isn’t there still a major question regarding whether or not the PA is actually the government of a sovereign state under occupation or a government of an entity with a status of something less than sovereign?

Just because a state was declared in 1988 and recognized by many states, doesn’t automatically mean that the PA is sovereign in the occupied territory.

In my view, the PA has never met the objective Montevideo criteria of effective control in either the West Bank or Gaza, maybe excluding Area A. This means that it could never be considered a state under these more objective criteria.

Political recognition does not a state make. And I think this is what Eugene may be referring to.

Hostage
Hostage

Response…Re: the 2009 Declaration: ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! I can see why you might feel that way, but the Prosecutor’s have already painted themselves into a corner on this question. The first time Ocampo said Palestine needed to make the next move, Abbas and Monsour suspended efforts in the Security Council and went straight to UNESCO and became a full member state. The next time Ocampo changed the rules and argued that the Practice of the General Assembly had to be consulted. So Abbas and Monsour went to the General Assembly and got resolution A/RES/67/19 adopted, which contained a lengthy list of preambular recitals about its previous practice and resolutions on the subject of Palestinian statehood beginning in 1988. Nothing prevents those same two men from going back to the proverbial well and getting a simple majority of the members present and voting in the General Assembly to adopt another resolution that recites the references in GA resolutions to the State of Palestine as an existing entity and full state member of many other international organizations prior to January 2009 or July of 2002. So long as the Prosecutors base their excuses for… Read more »

Joseph
Joseph

Response… You can make those arguments all you want, but the OTP has rejected the 2009 declaration — both Moreno-Ocampo and Bensouda — and there is no procedure in the Rome Statute that allows that decision to be appealed to the Pre-Trial Chamber.

With respect, I disagree.

Assuming that Palestine’s complaint amounted to an acceptance of jurisdiction for the purpose of Article 12(3), any friendly state party could then refer the situation to the prosecutor in accordance with Articles 13(a) and 14. The prosecutor would then presumably decide not to undertake an investigation for want of jurisdiction in accordance with Article 53(1)(a). The pre-trial chamber would then have discretion to review that decision at the request of the referring state under Article 53(3)(a). It would then have further discretion to permit victims such as Palestinian representatives to participate in the proceedings on the basis of Article 68(3).

For the avoidance of doubt, rule 92(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence makes clear that the court’s discretion to permit victim participation extends in principle to a decision “not to initiate an investigation”.

Whether a review would succeed is another matter.

Joseph
Joseph

Indeed, although in the context of the review, it is likely that the Chamber would consider whether there is jurisdiction. If it decided that there was, it would be surprising for the prosecutor to continue to deny jurisdiction in the face of that determination – although I accept that this would be a possibility.

Also, in my view, the statutory and procedural trail in this scenario is not especially labyrinth (perhaps less so than most benefits appeals – although that is not saying a lot). The issue is simply that you need a state party to initiate judicial review.

trackback

[…] can be found in Blogs. [see: Guest Post: Effective Control and Accepting ICC Jurisdiction;  Can the PA Ratify the Rome Statute? (A Response to Eugene).On 8 May, 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor relied on effective control to determine which of two […]