Search: palestine icc

any state that routinely uses force against other states (or against non-state actors located in other states) will not opt out of aggression. Why wouldn’t they? There may be some reputation cost for a state not to be a part of the ICC, but it is difficult to believe that there will be any such cost for a state that joins the ICC but limits the Court’s jurisdiction over it to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The ICC’s jurisdiction over aggression will thus almost certainly be limited to...

...the Rome Statute (para. 4), which meant that the key issue with regard to the Declaration was whether Palestine qualified as a State (para. 5). [5] The OTP concluded that it did not have the authority to decide whether, as a matter of law, Palestine was a State; that responsibility was “for the relevant bodies at the United Nations or the Assembly of States Parties” (para. 6). [6] The OTP acknowledged that numerous states had acknowledged Palestine’s statehood and that Palestine had applied for membership as a State in the...

As readers no doubt know, on Tuesday the ICC’s Trial Chamber declared a “mistrial” in the case against William Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang. The decision likely puts an end to the fiasco of the Ocampo Six — now the “Ocampo Zero,” to borrow Mark Kersten’s nicely-turned expression — although the Trial Chamber dismissed the charges “without prejudice,” leaving the door open for the OTP to prosecute Ruto and Sang again if its evidence ever becomes stronger. The decision is obviously terrible for the OTP. And it is difficult not...

the manuscript. It’s a terrific discussion, and builds an impressive case that centrists across the divide could build on to support the ICC in some fashion. My own views were much closer to the views of the book until a few months ago; they have gradually shifted since then. I find myself much less favorably disposed to the US getting closer to the ICC than in 2008, at least if that means actually joining. The reasons are two: one is that the ICC prosecutor has been sufficiently erratic that I...

As Julian notes, earlier today the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I ordered Thomas Lubanga to stand trial on three charges relating to the FPLC’s use of child soldiers. Here is the ICC’s summary of the charges: The Chamber decided that there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is criminally responsible as co-perpetrator for the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting of children under the age of fifteen years into the FPLC, the military wing of the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC) and using them...

Like our readers, I am enjoying the terrific and sophisticated discussion on Ben Wittes’ important and highly persuasive book (My short reaction: He’s pretty much right about most things). I hate to interrupt this flow with non-Wittes stuff, but I couldn’t resist a brief note on the growing non-U.S.-related backlash against the ICC. Indeed, just as the U.S. seems to be close to electing a pro-ICC president in Senator Obama (or even in Senator McCain), it is the rest of the world that is beginning to grumble about the ICC....

...asking for the SC to exercise a legal authority to terminate the ICC proceedings, but rather to give political support to the position that the ICC should reconsider on its own accord: "Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. But the Rome Treaty removes this existing system of checks and balances, and places enormous unchecked power in the hands of the ICC prosecutor and judges. The treaty created a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court...

...perfectly valid, indeed important. AMICC Operative paragraph 6 of Resolution 1970 purports to grant exclusive jurisdiction over non-Libyan nationals of countries that are not ICC States Parties to the courts of their nationalities, subject to waiver. This closely tracks operative paragraph 6 of the Darfur resolution, 1593. It should be noted that under the UN Charter the Security Council can give orders to UN Member States but cannot bind other international organizations. As such, the ICC could ignore this provision, though it would likely try to avoid this situation. http://amicc.blogspot.com/2011/02/amicc-analysis-of-un-security-council.html...

...that no state can arrest or surrender a government official entitled to personal immunity. They make clear the AU believes personal immunity prohibits the ICC from prosecuting any such official. And not just the ICC — “any International Court or Tribunal.” The AU’s robust defence of personal immunity in its 2013 ICC Decision is not surprising. After all, when the AU adopted the Malabo Protocol in 2014, extending the jurisdiction of the proposed African Court of Justice and Human Rights to a variety of international crimes — including aggression —...

...Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. According to Palestine, the Vienna Convention requires that “the diplomatic mission of a sending State must be established on the territory of the receiving State.” Palestine contends that, in the eyes of international law, Jerusalem cannot be considered to be the territory of the State of Israel. In this case, too, the question of the statehood of Palestine is crucial – because, under the ICJ Statute, “only States may be parties in cases before the Court.” Yet this case, too, is in something of a hiatus....

all other religions live in the shadow of Islam (Art. 31); Peace accords are treacherous schemes of Zionists (Art. 32); Jihad will not end until liberation is complete (Art. 33); and Palestine is the navel of the earth and Jihad is our answer to the Christian Crusades (Art. 34). Excerpts of these articles are below: Art. 2 The Link Between Hamas and the Association of Muslim Brothers The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization,...

...in the occupied territories. Fifth, as parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC, EU member states should refrain from attacking or questioning the court’s independence, and should instead protect the ICC in the face of threats and intimidations from the Israeli and US governments. As ICC members, all EU governments have clear obligations, including to cooperate with the court to execute arrest warrants and to avoid “non-essential contacts” with individuals who are fugitives from the ICC.  Finally, the EU should also act on the ICJ’s clear statements on the...