6 ms·

One of the interesting aspects to me, is that ICC considers this both a non-international and international armed conflict (mildly different laws apply dependin

One of the interesting aspects to me, is that ICC considers this both a non-international and international armed conflict (mildly different laws apply depending on which it is, but the difference is small as far as i understand) How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't.

zahma 2y ago
I’s guess it depends on who you’re talking to: some organizations or states see Palestine as a state, others do not, and others see it as a future state but not one at this time. Keeping a definition broad lessens the chance of outright dismissal of otherwise cogent claims of wrongdoing. That’s all insofar as anyone or entity actually respects international law. It comes down to states agreeing that it’s in their best interests to cooperate on a matter. As long as the USA and Europe support Israel and don’t bring to bear any leverage to stop this insanity and form an independent state, the ICC can call Palestine whatever it wants to describe the situation.
- bawolff 2y ago
  I don't think it matters what other groups think, it matters what the ICC thinks, and they already ruled they think Palestine is a state, at least in a preliminary fashion (i'm sure if this gets to trial the question will be relitigated). Additionally ICC only has juridsiction if Palestine is a state. So the entire thing goes away if Palestine is not a state (since only states can aceede to the rome convention). I do not think Palestine being a state is the same question as if this conflict is international. I think it may be possible for both Palestine to be a state and this conflict be non international. However IANAL and that is pure speculation.
keefle 2y ago
I'm wondering the same, but also wonder if the situation off the coast of Yemen and Iran's recent response to Israel bombing their embassy made the conflict partially international?
- thsksbd 2y ago
  The conflict cannot be not considered international simply because Palestine's recognition is blocked by the US on Israel's behalf. Nor can it be not international due to the vagueness of Israel's borders. Israel has internationally legally recognized borders (the Green Line) and is acting outside them. This conflict is international.
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    In fact Palestine’s recognition is not blocked by the US. What is blocked by the US is Palestine becoming a full member of the UN. The two things are different. Switzerland did not join the UN until 2002. I’m sure that we can all agree that Switzerland was recognized as a state prior to 2002. Becoming a full member of the UN is a sufficient but not necessary condition for recognition. The other way is simply to get as many other states as possible to recognize you. Arguably Palestine’s recognition by the UN General Assembly is also sufficient.
- bawolff 2y ago
  None of the charges are related to those incidents so i doubt that is relavent.
digging 2y ago
> How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't. I don't think this is correct. Palestine's status is disputed. Legal status isn't a physical property, it's a social one, so if many people think "A" is "B", then "A" is in some sense genuinely "B". Considering the conflict in both contexts avoids "Oops, the entire thing is nullified because it's technically Conflict Type 1, not Conflict Type 2."
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  "so if many people think A is B, then A is in some sense genuinely B." Rather, A is A for many people, and B is B for many people. Both groups aren't mutually exclusive ( GroupA ∩ GroupB ) != ∅
  - bishbosh 2y ago
    I don't see how this relates. The point was about Palestine as a state. If enough people recognize Palestine as a separate state, this becomes an international issue. I believe this was the A is B claim digging made. What would be the analogous claim for your point? That some folks believe Palestine is it's own state, and some folks don't, and that the views are not mutually exclusive?
    - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
      Yes, that is my point. The same applies to Taiwan. Guatemala considers Taiwan a country, China does not. Some countries belong to both groups depending on the context.
  - atoav 2y ago
    Yeah, but we are judging a thing that happened in time. So the sets will have some noise/overlap who will specify the conflict as A or B during which time of the conflict. The ICC likely judges about crimes that happened during multiple phases of the conflict, hence the conflict could have multiple types.
- bawolff 2y ago
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't I don’t believe the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to state-on-state conflicts. The more-curious question is how the ICC is claiming jurisdiction over non-signatory nations.
- ajb 2y ago
  They aren't: they are asserting jurisdiction over individuals: - who are alleged to have committed crimes on the territory of the signatory nation, or - who are nationals of the signatory nation
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Oh interesting, TIL [1]. [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... page 3, paragraph 9
  - dmayle 2y ago
    Except Isreal isn't a signatory nation, and all of the land in question is part of Israel. That's not a judgement either way, there have been some attempts to change that, but the ICC doesn't actually have any jurisdiction here.
    - YZF 2y ago
      Apparently "Palestine" (which is not a state/country) signed on and due to that the court ruled (in some other case) that it does have jurisdiction. Also the "Palestine" side of the warrants are against Hamas which also feels weird (Hamas is also not a signatory nation and many suggest that Hamas != Palestine). Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial? What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
      - bawolff 2y ago
        Generally when states sign treaties it applies to the de jure state, not just what it de facto controls. > Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial? What consequences do they face if they fail to do that? Almost certainly nothing. They are obligated to help, but realistically if the palestine authority had the ability to capture hamas leadership i imagine they would have done so a long time ago, as the two sides fought what was essentially a civil war a while back.
mjfl 2y ago
It is not a separate state. Israel controls the borders and the airspace of Palestine and Palestine is not allowed, at least by law, to raise its own army, navy, air force. Israel is thus sovereign over Palestine and the Palestinians are its subjects, which is why Israel is not a democracy, and why this conflict is a rebellion.
- srj 2y ago
  Considering the Oct 7 attack it seems pretty wise of Israel to have not allowed Hamas a more advanced military. It is the professed goal of their government to eliminate Israel.
  - mjfl 2y ago
    Israel's rationale for de-facto annexation is irrelevant.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      You could argue it is de-facto occupation, but it is pretty clearly not annexation (annexation means fully integrated into civil structure).
      - mjfl 2y ago
        annexation does not imply integration into civilian infrastructure. It's all sovereignty.
megous 2y ago
Israel says it's fighting Hamas, a non-state actor. That's non-international conflict. It's also invading and attacking citizens of Palestine State without consent of its representatives (PA), that's international conflict.

zahma 2y ago

I’s guess it depends on who you’re talking to: some organizations or states see Palestine as a state, others do not, and others see it as a future state but not one at this time. Keeping a definition broad lessens the chance of outright dismissal of otherwise cogent claims of wrongdoing. That’s all insofar as anyone or entity actually respects international law. It comes down to states agreeing that it’s in their best interests to cooperate on a matter. As long as the USA and Europe support Israel and don’t bring to bear any leverage to stop this insanity and form an independent state, the ICC can call Palestine whatever it wants to describe the situation.

bawolff 2y ago
I don't think it matters what other groups think, it matters what the ICC thinks, and they already ruled they think Palestine is a state, at least in a preliminary fashion (i'm sure if this gets to trial the question will be relitigated). Additionally ICC only has juridsiction if Palestine is a state. So the entire thing goes away if Palestine is not a state (since only states can aceede to the rome convention). I do not think Palestine being a state is the same question as if this conflict is international. I think it may be possible for both Palestine to be a state and this conflict be non international. However IANAL and that is pure speculation.

keefle 2y ago

I'm wondering the same, but also wonder if the situation off the coast of Yemen and Iran's recent response to Israel bombing their embassy made the conflict partially international?

thsksbd 2y ago
The conflict cannot be not considered international simply because Palestine's recognition is blocked by the US on Israel's behalf. Nor can it be not international due to the vagueness of Israel's borders. Israel has internationally legally recognized borders (the Green Line) and is acting outside them. This conflict is international.
- zarzavat 2y ago
  In fact Palestine’s recognition is not blocked by the US. What is blocked by the US is Palestine becoming a full member of the UN. The two things are different. Switzerland did not join the UN until 2002. I’m sure that we can all agree that Switzerland was recognized as a state prior to 2002. Becoming a full member of the UN is a sufficient but not necessary condition for recognition. The other way is simply to get as many other states as possible to recognize you. Arguably Palestine’s recognition by the UN General Assembly is also sufficient.
bawolff 2y ago
None of the charges are related to those incidents so i doubt that is relavent.

digging 2y ago

> How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't. I don't think this is correct. Palestine's status is disputed. Legal status isn't a physical property, it's a social one, so if many people think "A" is "B", then "A" is in some sense genuinely "B". Considering the conflict in both contexts avoids "Oops, the entire thing is nullified because it's technically Conflict Type 1, not Conflict Type 2."

catlikesshrimp 2y ago
"so if many people think A is B, then A is in some sense genuinely B." Rather, A is A for many people, and B is B for many people. Both groups aren't mutually exclusive ( GroupA ∩ GroupB ) != ∅
- bishbosh 2y ago
  I don't see how this relates. The point was about Palestine as a state. If enough people recognize Palestine as a separate state, this becomes an international issue. I believe this was the A is B claim digging made. What would be the analogous claim for your point? That some folks believe Palestine is it's own state, and some folks don't, and that the views are not mutually exclusive?
  - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    Yes, that is my point. The same applies to Taiwan. Guatemala considers Taiwan a country, China does not. Some countries belong to both groups depending on the context.
- atoav 2y ago
  Yeah, but we are judging a thing that happened in time. So the sets will have some noise/overlap who will specify the conflict as A or B during which time of the conflict. The ICC likely judges about crimes that happened during multiple phases of the conflict, hence the conflict could have multiple types.
bawolff 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't I don’t believe the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to state-on-state conflicts. The more-curious question is how the ICC is claiming jurisdiction over non-signatory nations.

ajb 2y ago
They aren't: they are asserting jurisdiction over individuals: - who are alleged to have committed crimes on the territory of the signatory nation, or - who are nationals of the signatory nation
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Oh interesting, TIL [1]. [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... page 3, paragraph 9
- dmayle 2y ago
  Except Isreal isn't a signatory nation, and all of the land in question is part of Israel. That's not a judgement either way, there have been some attempts to change that, but the ICC doesn't actually have any jurisdiction here.
  - YZF 2y ago
    Apparently "Palestine" (which is not a state/country) signed on and due to that the court ruled (in some other case) that it does have jurisdiction. Also the "Palestine" side of the warrants are against Hamas which also feels weird (Hamas is also not a signatory nation and many suggest that Hamas != Palestine). Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial? What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
    - bawolff 2y ago
      Generally when states sign treaties it applies to the de jure state, not just what it de facto controls. > Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial? What consequences do they face if they fail to do that? Almost certainly nothing. They are obligated to help, but realistically if the palestine authority had the ability to capture hamas leadership i imagine they would have done so a long time ago, as the two sides fought what was essentially a civil war a while back.

mjfl 2y ago

It is not a separate state. Israel controls the borders and the airspace of Palestine and Palestine is not allowed, at least by law, to raise its own army, navy, air force. Israel is thus sovereign over Palestine and the Palestinians are its subjects, which is why Israel is not a democracy, and why this conflict is a rebellion.

srj 2y ago
Considering the Oct 7 attack it seems pretty wise of Israel to have not allowed Hamas a more advanced military. It is the professed goal of their government to eliminate Israel.
- mjfl 2y ago
  Israel's rationale for de-facto annexation is irrelevant.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    You could argue it is de-facto occupation, but it is pretty clearly not annexation (annexation means fully integrated into civil structure).
    - mjfl 2y ago
      annexation does not imply integration into civilian infrastructure. It's all sovereignty.

megous 2y ago

Israel says it's fighting Hamas, a non-state actor. That's non-international conflict. It's also invading and attacking citizens of Palestine State without consent of its representatives (PA), that's international conflict.