8 ms·

The ICC is seeking arrest warrants from the ICC for people who don't care what the ICC says, and one of them isn't even in a country that's a member of the ICC?

by bhaney 2y ago

The ICC is seeking arrest warrants from the ICC for people who don't care what the ICC says, and one of them isn't even in a country that's a member of the ICC? What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants?

loceng 2y ago
Any countries part of the ICC then have the ability to arrest anyone with warrants. Whether those countries will do the arrests or not will be up to whomever is in political power and if they are toeing the same line or not. Those with arrest warrants then would have to risk traveling.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Not anyone. As long as he’s in power he’s protected by diplomatic protocol. No one is going to break international law and risk their reputation and ability to host diplomats for an ICC warrant. Just makes his predicament more desperate long term though.
richrichie 2y ago
Mere existence of arrest warrants for war crimes against a serving Israeli prime minister has great symbolic value. This will have big impact on media discourse not controlled by the Israeli lobby. Also, one does not have to choose sides. We can condemn both sides as barbaric.
- bhaney 2y ago
  > We can condemn both sides as barbaric I agree entirely but I'm not really trying to make any political statement here. I'm purely interested in the mechanical aspect of how this court works and how it can manage to accomplish anything in this situation. It seems to me that this story isn't much worth following, because nothing of consequence will happen if these warrants end up being served.
  - jeltz 2y ago
    It makes the people with arrest warrants much less welcome to visit other countries. While they still may not actually arrest a leader of state many countries would say no to a visit to not risk a media scandal by having an accused war criminal visit.
    - bhaney 2y ago
      > It makes the people with arrest warrants much less welcome to visit other countries Yeah, that's fair. I guess I'm just kind of unimpressed that that's the worst punishment something called the "International Criminal Court" can inflict on leaders that they've judged to be war criminals.
      - lazyasciiart 2y ago
        Since this is an actual court, I’d say it’s important to differentiate between “has judged as being war criminals” and “has charged with being war criminals”. There are hopefully more penalties for someone who has been tried and found guilty.
      - 2y ago
belter 2y ago
The ICC is not doing that. A prosecutor is requesting the court to approve them. Now, why is the court accepting legal challenges on legal issues, and independently of the merits of those issues, from countries like South Africa, who publicly said they would not arrest Putin, who actually DOES have an ICC arrest mandate against him?
- ben_w 2y ago
  > from countries like South Africa, who publicly said they would not arrest Putin, I thought they either outright said they would arrest Putin, or at least equivocated just enough to convince Putin to not want to find out if they would or not? Did they later clarify "no we won't"?
  - belter 2y ago
    "South Africa grants Putin and Brics leaders diplomatic immunity for summit" - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/30/south-africa-grants-putin-and-brics-leaders-diplomatic-immunity-for-summit https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/30/south-africa-g... "...South Africa has issued blanket diplomatic immunity to all leaders attending an August summit, meaning Vladimir Putin might be able to travel to Johannesburg and not fear the country acting on an international criminal court warrant for his arrest..." It's the ultimate hypocrisy on South Africa to undermine the same court where is currently arguing, and a major legal failure on the court to accept South Africa claims.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Thanks, but the second paragraph begins: > South African officials insisted the broad offer of immunity, issued in a government gazette, may not trump the ICC arrest warrant. Which is exactly the same uncertainty I had before.
mannyv 2y ago
My understanding is that the ICC is only supposed to do this for countries/areas without a functioning and functionally independent judicial system. I expect the request for the Israelis will not be approved. Hamas will be interesting. Hamas' territory has no functioning judicial system, but does the ICC have jurisdiction? In any case the "warrants" if issued would only apply to countries who signed the ICC treaty.
- toast0 2y ago
  The ICC claims jurisdiction [1], which is enough for it to issue warrants and hold trials and issue judgements. The question is always if the warrants will be executed and the judgements enforced, as the ICC cannot enforce its rulings itself. At the time of the declaration accepting jursdiction of the ICC by the State of Palestine[2], there was a unity government of Palestine, so it feels like maybe. In April 2012, the ICC declined to assert jurisdiction over Palestine, as it was not recognized as a State by the UN [3], but in November 2012, Palestine was granted the status of a non-member observer State, which seems to satisfy the ICC. [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine [2] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/press/Palestine_A_12-3.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/pre... [3] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/9B651B80-EC43-4945-BF5A-FAFF5F334B92/284387/SituationinPalestine030412ENG.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/9B6...
  - mannyv 2y ago
    At some point the claim of jurisdiction has to be adjudicated, as it states here: "The Chamber provided a legal answer based on the strict interpretation of the Rome Statute. It emphasised that the issue of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court would have to be further examined when the Prosecutor submits an application for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or summons to appear. The Chamber declined to address the arguments regarding the Oslo Accords in the context of the present proceedings and indicated that these issues may be raised at a later stage of the proceedings." https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/palestine/210215-palestine-q-a-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p... Did the legal government of Palestine do the initial request in 2015? That would have been Hamas, since Hamas was the last elected government of Palestine. I would be surprised if Hamas acceded to the ICC's jurisdiction. Can a non-state actor be accorded the same rights as a state under the Rome accords? Is the "government of Palestine" an actual entity? If an entity other than the authorized government accepts jurisdiction of the ICC, does that count? I mean, this isn't even getting the actual meat of the case and it's already a mess.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> The ICC is seeking arrest warrants from the ICC for people who don't care what the ICC says, and one of them isn't even in a country that's a member of the ICC? Neither Galant nor Netanyahu is currently in an ICC state, but that's not entirely novel territory for international criminal tribunals. > What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants? If the judges of the court grant the prosecutor’s application, the court will issue warrants and seek cooperation of its 124 member states and any willing cooperating states in enforcing them.

toast0 2y ago
At the time of the letter, Hamas and Fatah were in a unity government [1], although that's maybe disputable too. If Wikipedia is accurate and complete, Hamas claimed at the end of November 2014, that the unity government had expired; but then in June 2015, Hamas rejected the dissolution of the unity government. But yeah, you're right, my summary was overly brief --- the earlier ruling was more that there's a reasonable question of if they have jurisdiction, so investigations can proceed. As opposed to before where the court ruled that it didn't have jurisdiction, and couldn't proceed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Hamdallah_Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Hamdallah_Government
- mannyv 2y ago
  From the same article: "Like the former emergency governments after June 2007, which were installed by presidential decree, this unity government was in fact illegal, as it was not approved by the Legislative Council.[2][3] Without the cooperation of all parties, however, it was not possible to get the necessary quorum to put a vote.[20]"
  - toast0 2y ago
    IMHO, it's pretty hard to tell what's legal and not, when all of the elected officials are way past their elected terms, and the bodies are not in session. Article 43 seems to give pretty wide berth for the President to operate when the Legislative Council is not in session, and if the Legislative Council is never expected to be in session, there's no mechanism to reign that in. > Article (43) The President of the National Authority shall have the right in exceptional cases, which can not be delayed, and while the Legislative Council is not in session, to issue decisions and decrees that have the power of law. However, the decisions issued shall be presented to the Legislative Council in the first session convened after their issuance, otherwise they will cease to have the power of law. If these decisions were presented as mentioned above, but were not approved, then they shall cease to have the power of law. To be honest, not a lot of countries have laws that contemplate continuance of government in case elections are not held.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> My understanding is that the ICC is only supposed to do this for countries/areas without a functioning and functionally independent judicial system. That seems to be a misunderstanding based on an improper generalization of Article 17 of the Rome Statute: the kind of inadmissibility you refer to applies not based on general capacity of the state but of action in the specific case: ---[Art 17] 1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; (c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3; (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court. 2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable: (a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5; (b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; (c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice. 3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings. ---[end]

Levitz 2y ago
>And suddenly we're back to 2005 Israeli disengagement, where they did withdraw their settlements in gaza and reduced their physical presence instead opting for trying to influence "remotely" while allowing Palestine to self-assemble it's governance. Turns out doing that is actually really hard, hamas took over anyway, and it landed everyone in the current mess. Yes, because Israel delivered the entire region to Hamas on a silver platter, having absolutely no coordination whatsoever with Palestinian authorities. This was in a time in which the majority of the population there supported a peaceful relationship with Israel. A massive blunder that Israel seems content with paying in Palestinian blood but not concessions of their own, it's insane to me that this ever became a talking point to defend Israel's actions. >Suggesting that they just do it again but trust me bro this time it'll work, or suggesting that what they really need to do is also relinquish any influence they have over the region is just not an idea that is going to make it off the ground. Some compromise related to it is probably what will happen, and we can all set our watches for the next iteration. >Again, it's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred years Sure, it's incredibly complex and yeah, I hope that's what happens in the end, thing is for all the deep this hole is, Israel doesn't seem interested in stopping digging, from their actions the trajectory seems set towards escalating the conflict up to a breakpoint in which they can end up better off, since they are very clearly in the more powerful position.
- its_ethan 2y ago
  The Palestinian authorities were in the midst of an election, and the coordination with them that took place was in the form of US/Israel interference of the election to try and prevent Hamas from winning. Hamas won anyway. Fatah resisted in Gaza, and Hamas ended up taking over by force anyway. So what should Israel have done to not hand control over to Hamas on a "silver platter"? They + the US tried to keep Fatah in power, that was everyone's preferred outcome where some stability could've emerged. That failed due to real Palestinian support of Hamas, as well as Hamas' military force. Israel's options were basically to intervene militarily, overriding the results of the election; or "accept" the results and deal with/ reduce Hamas' military ambitions (which is what they've tried to do ever since). Both options put Israel in a losing situation. Override the will of Palestinian elections and you're denying them their sovereignty, interfere with the obvious military threat, and you're doing apartheid. Lose lose.
  - racional 2y ago
    So what should Israel have done to not hand control over to Hamas on a "silver platter"? In terms of preventing the Hamas-Fatah war and the initial takeover of the Strip -- there probably wasn't very much it could have done. But after that juncture -- perhaps if the Prime Minister did not have an explicit policy of keeping them in power for 14 years (in order to "smash the vision Palestinian state into two pieces" as he would boast of his genius plan), backed by allowing $1.8 billion in transfers of Qatari cash from 2012 to 2018 -- that might have helped turn the tide.
  - dunekid 2y ago
    > Override the will of Palestinian elections and you're denying them their sovereignty, interfere with the obvious military threat, and you're doing apartheid. So it is decided that it will do both. Maybe, just maybe, reconcile? No. Acknowledge the right to return and pay reparations? No. We will run apartheid and blockade sea, air and land. And the Egypt border will be controlled by way of a trilateral treaty. Increase illegal and immoral settlements in West Bank? Yes. Shield and promote settler terrorism? Yes.
    - its_ethan 2y ago
      Brother, how and why are you trolling around this thread 3 days after the link was posted? In lieu of just matching snark with snark, I'll just suggest you take 5 minutes of self reflection to ask yourself if you're maybe being over-reductive of the situation, if you're really considering what reconciliation (+ it's risks) means to people who live in Israel/Palestine, and what a practical solution might actually look like. I'll do the same. Have a nice day.
      - dunekid 2y ago
        Hey there! I'm really sorry if that came as snarky, but didn't mean that way. But you have to see that most of the comments are just plain disinformation and just could not let them hang in a no-way-out situation. I hope there would be a way out, without harming the people born into it. But I believe that has to come without this overpowering and dehumanising by those who definitely have the upper hand. This place does have all it takes to be a unifying idea for the vast majority of the world, and I sincerely hope peace prevails. You have a nice day too!

mrguyorama 2y ago

Which genocide? The one that parts of Israel, mostly Likud, wants and isn't doing a very good job of (I was told millions would have starved by now), or the one that Hamas emphatically wants, and is supported by the vast majority of Palestinians, but they are technologically incapable of performing? Plenty Israelis want a two state solution where Palestinians are not harmed. How many Palestinians want a two state solution where Jews live free? Why don't Palestinians get visibly upset when a Hamas rocket meant for Israel blows up Palestinians? Bibi should rot in prison. So should the leader of Hamas. But who is willing to run Palestine without shooting rockets at Israel, and how long will they stay in power before they are overthrown by people who want to go back to shooting rockets at Israel? There can't be a peace as long as Palestinians want the eradication of Israel, much as there can't be peace as long as Likud wants to eradicate Palestine. But if we tell Israel it can't do anything, but do not limit Hamas in the same way, all you are doing is allowing Israelis to die for the convenience of ignoring an actually difficult geopolitical problem. "Just stop shooting at Palestinians" will certainly end the suffering of Palestinians, but is objectively trading 30k Palestinians dead now with a few Israelis dead every year. And this isn't even getting to the insane levels of Anti-semitism that hide themselves under a cloak of "just supporting Palestinians". If you know any jewish people who aren't evenly Israeli, ask them how safe they feel nowadays.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
[flagged]
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  I will remember the small town next door that put out a star of david to celebrate Hanukkah and got a pile of death threats for supporting Israel. Do you remember the teens at a concert for peace for Palestine that died on Oct 7th? IE, people who literally were pushing for Israel to unilaterally get it's hands out of Palestine, the exact thing people are marching all over the world for. Hamas literally targeted them. Why? Why kill the people doing exactly what you claim to want them to do? Their deaths and rapes were intentional. I want to make it very clear that I hold no qualms or malice towards people who want a unilateral ceasefire from Israel and damn the consequences of that. Hell, even a lot of Israelis seem to hold that opinion! But I only want to ask: how many Israeli people have to die before that is obviously not a solution? How many Israeli deaths per year before "okay maybe going to war with Palestine" becomes acceptable?
throw_a_grenade 2y ago
> "Just stop shooting at Palestinians" will certainly end the suffering of Palestinians, but is objectively trading 30k Palestinians dead now with a few Israelis dead every year. There's shooting and there's shooting. 30k Palestinians in Gaza Strip are in the war zone so in a way it's not a much surprise they're dying, but there are Palestiniani on the West Bank, who are being murdered by Israeli (settlers backed by IDF). Last I checked the death toll is around 500 (https://apnews.com/article/settler-attack-palestinians-west-bank-israel-71180e5579e4dde464672568e9669fe2 https://apnews.com/article/settler-attack-palestinians-west-...), which puts it within the ballpark of 7 October Hamas' strike. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag_attack_policy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag_attack_policy This is absolutely "Just stop shooting at Palestinians", and I think they have every right to resist such occupation.

jcranmer 2y ago

Counterterrorism is necessarily a difficult and fraught process. Ultimately, it's political; military force is useful only so far as it can convince people there is no better way than your political aims. Looking at the example of successful counterterrorism conclusions, such as The Troubles in Northern Ireland or Colombia's efforts against FARC, the general pathway to success is to build up successful alternative political institutions that have the legitimacy to disarm the terrorist groups, which also means to a degree making some concessions towards the political aims of terrorists, and perhaps also requires co-opting the more moderate terrorists into legitimate political parties. Notably not on that list is such things as targeting enemy leaders with artillery rounds. Indiscriminate damage is one of the best ways to fuel an upsurge in terrorist violence; what Israel is doing now looks in many ways like what the British did in Northern Ireland to start The Troubles rather than what it did to end them.

pdonis 2y ago
I agree that Northern Ireland and Colombia v. FARC are useful examples. However, they both share one key property that the Israel-Hamas conflict does not have: the international community fully supports the existence of both the UK and Colombia as legitimate nation-states. That is not true for Israel; there is a large and vocal segment of the international community that does not want Israel to exist, and that segment has enough political clout that it cannot be ignored.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  The segment of the international community that matters is fully on board with Israel's existence. The largest country to not formally recognize Israel is Indonesia. Largely only Iran is intransigent about Israel's nonexistence; the Arab countries have in the recent past explicitly endorsed proposals to recognize Israel in exchange for durable progress on Palestinian statehood. (Which, really, is one of the principal causes of the current situation: Netanyahu has in the past sought to undermine the ability of the Palestinian Authority to effectively govern Palestine--including covert support for Hamas--so as to be able to claim that there's no partner for peace to avoid having to make any progress on the statehood issue.)
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > The segment of the international community that matters is fully on board with Israel's existence. I disagree. US policy in this area, for instance, is being significantly influenced by the fact that there are protests at major universities in support of Hamas, and elected politicians who are advocating the same thing. (And by that I mean explicitly supporting the Hamas objective of destroying Israel.) > the Arab countries have in the recent past explicitly endorsed proposals to recognize Israel In other words, they don't currently support Israel's existence, but they might decide to if enough of their demands are met. Which concedes my point. The reason this matters is that the UK and Colombia were only able to even consider the options they ended up taking to resolve their conflicts because they knew that no matter what, their existence as nation states was not in question. Israel does not have that assurance, and that means they do not feel able to consider those kinds of options. Or, to put it another way, as I have said in several other posts elsewhere in this discussion, this conflict is an existential conflict for Israel. Northern Ireland was not an existential conflict for the UK, and FARC was not an existential conflict for Colombia. That makes a huge difference.
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      > US policy in this area, for instance, is being significantly influenced by the fact that there are protests at major universities I'm sorry, but no. These protests have only reached salience in the news because of overreaction from a few university presidents who sent in the police to (in the event) violently break up the protest. I assert there is no influence on the policy being done by these protests. The general stance by the administration has remained the same--the Biden administration remains firmly pro-Israel--and to the extent that it's changed, it's been prompted by frustration with the continued inability of the current Israeli government to actually listen to the administration's points about "what the hell is your day-after plan?" > in support of Hamas, and elected politicians who are advocating the same thing. (And by that I mean explicitly supporting the Hamas objective of destroying Israel.) I'm not going to deny that there are people among the protestors who support Hamas and maybe even want to see Israel cease to exist. But it's definitely far from the majority of the protestors, and I've never actually seen any statement by anybody involved that would place them in that category. The thing is, there's this persistent tendency I've seen where people try to twist any criticism of Israel or its government into support for Israel's nonexistence. No major world power today has disestablishment of Israel a policy goal, nor is any of them close to having that policy. But I do worry that if Israel continues on this path, then it may in a few decades' time become a murderous genocidal state... and that very well could have the superpowers pushing for Israel's destruction. Even though Israel is unarguably the state that faces the greatest existential threat, it's policies can still be (and indeed probably are) counterproductive to combating that.