Search: palestine icc

...to carl m: We are not concerned here about Jewish rights in the whole British Mandate for Palestine, as it was eventually delineated in 1925. We are dealing here with Jewish rights in "western Palestine", i.e. the part of the Britih Mandate west of the Jordan River. The Jewish National Home (JNH) "in Palestine" was unquestionably envisaged in all of western Palestine. The wording of the Mandate -- in its 28 articles and its 15 instances of the phrase "in Palestine" -- leaves no doubt as to the entirety of...

...Nazis charge US military forces with crimes with the ICC because US forces supposedly "mistreat' them upon capture, but it is clear that no bodily harm was ever done to the Nazis. The ICC however beased upon its moral relativist charter charges the US troops with war crimes until the bureaucracyy can get things "sorted out". Moral relativist logic fallacy.So all the ICC is for the United States is an unnatural international police state control to be used against a free country, when the ICC is specifically designed to confront...

heart of the ICC’s decision to allow Katanga’s trial before the DRC’s High Military Court. Though it is ostensibly a procedural safeguard for ICC defendants who go back to their country of origin, the ICC Presidency appears to have precious little time for Katanga’s fair trial rights. Citing the Libya admissibility challenges, the judges emphasize that the ICC ‘is not an international court of human rights’ (para. 31). In two brief but astounding paragraphs, the ICC dismisses Katanga’s concerns about an unfair trial in the Congolese military system, where he...

...extent to which the ICC has entrenched undemocratic regimes in Africa. The ICC, he argues, is a ‘mildly consequential cog in the wheel of DRC and Uganda politics’ – and regardless these states, which were violent and undemocratic long before the ICC intervened, have since made important democratic advances, evidenced by the string of recent national elections in the two countries. Owiso questions the extent of the ICC’s political influence in Africa: it may be negative but is it as negative as Distant Justice contends? Chapter 3 of the book...

...of the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigating crimes committed in Palestine. Even respected proponents of international justice have lined up to proffer reasons as to why an ICC investigation should be thwarted. In doing so, they project a vision of international criminal justice that should only be available some places, some of the time. There are major costs to this view – for both Palestine and Israel, for the ICC, and for the project of international criminal justice. The ICC route has its limitations, but efforts to achieve even a...

Nazis, the ICTR prosecuting only Hutus. But the ICC? The ICC investigates situations, not specific crimes. By ratifying the Rome Statute and filing its Art. 12(3) declaration, Palestine has taken both Israel and itself to the ICC, not Israel alone. Palestine thus no longer has any control whatsoever over which individuals and which crimes the OTP investigates. That’s not lawfare, that’s bravery — especially given that, as I’ve pointed out time and again on the blog, the OTP is quite likely to go after Hamas crimes before it goes after...

Nearly everyone treats Palestine’s membership in the ICC as a done deal; after all, the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) has accepted Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute and the OTP has publicly stated that “since Palestine was granted observer State status in the UN by the UNGA, it must be considered a ‘State’ for the purposes of accession.” But neither the UNSG nor the OTP has final say over whether Palestine qualifies as a state; as Eugene Kontorovich, my friend and regular Israel/Palestine sparring partner, has repeatedly pointed out on Twitter...

the ICC, and is not bound by the ICC's decisions on anything, including jurisdiction. Of course you are right that if the US satisfies the ICC, whether on complementarity or anything else, the ICC will leave it alone, but the US is not obliged to satisfy the ICC. Instead, the US has conducted a largely successful campaign to prevent the ICC from being able to affect American interests. The last thing it should now do is give the ICC some kind of legitimacy by appearing before it. That said, I...

judicial institution function.  At the same time, the US is not an ICC State Party, and thus owes no cooperation obligations to the ICC. Declining to provide assistance related to the Afghanistan situation or Palestine situation is perfectly within the US’s rights.  What the US can do in these situations is engage constructively with the ICC—this does not mean actively assist—but treat the ICC with the respect due a judicial institution. For example, if the US maintains there are outstanding issues as to jurisdiction related to the Afghanistan situation (a claim the...

it declared itself to be the Government of Palestine. Palestine was not being declared as a new state in 1988. Rather, the PLO was putting itself forward as the government of a state dating back to the 1920s. The fact that the State of Palestine dates back to 1923 reinforces the Prosecutor’s analysis that Palestine is a state. The Pre-Trial Chamber need not avert to this earlier time. It can confine itself to referring to General Assembly Resolution 67/19 and to the contemporary acceptance of Palestine to conclude that Palestine...

adopting broad interpretations extending the territorial reach of the ICC (see also Schabas, p. 68). In any event, the ICC’s territorial jurisdiction places constraints on the scope of investigations and cases before the ICC. Moreover, the ICC’s extensive interpretation of RS Article 12(2)(a) could give rise to challenges to the ICC’s jurisdiction under RS Article 19 by, for example, the accused or by Myanmar, which could derail the entire proceedings. Complementarity: ICC Investigations and Universal Jurisdiction in Argentina It is well known that complementarity embodies the notion that the ICC...

has territorial jurisdiction in Palestine. The Court faces a crucial decision: either it recognises that the ICC has judicial oversight over international crimes in Palestine (by virtue of the reasons put forth by my colleagues in this symposium), or it decides that Palestine remains in the blind spot of international justice, a legal black hole of where impunity is granted for the most serious crimes of international concern. As such, in accepting or rejecting territorial jurisdiction over Palestine, the Court will be forced to clarify its position within international law:...