5 ms·

If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? ICC works in conjunctio

If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? ICC works in conjunction with national courts. If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not. Israel’s judiciary is both functional and independent. Very independent. Of Netanyahu in particular. And the Israeli judiciary seems to be going along with this. Source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works > The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? No. Israel’s courts ratifying alleged war crimes is the Israeli national system being “unwilling or unable to [apply international law] genuinely.”
- alephnerd 2y ago
  And to add on to JumpCrisscross, ICC warrants are only valid in countries that are currently member states of the ICC [0], though countries will gladly turn the other eye depending on mutual interests (eg. Narendra Modi's close relationship with Japan, France, Singapore, UAE, and Israel because they didn't enforce US travel sanctions on him when he was CM of Gujarat in the 2000s). Notably, the US is NOT a signatory of the ICC (this was a whole thing in the Iraq War days). [0] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.sv...
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    For folks interested in this process, take a look at the ICC proceedings against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman [1] regarding war crimes in Darfur. [1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      Also the Frontline documentary from 2019 about Ratko Mladić's trial [0] (Edit: I'm a dummy, this was the ICTY, not the ICC, but the ICTY was the precursor model of the ICC in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars). [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo
  - bawolff 2y ago
    I don't think this is relavent to the complementary principle. If the israeli judicial system made a good faith attempt to prosecute this crime following the standards of international law, it would probably prevent this warrant even though Israel is not a party to the court.
  - sweeter 2y ago
    It kind of gives the game away when you see that the US is not a signatory but had a big say in appointing the Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in 2021 and have instituted the "Invade the Hague Act" that would allow the US to invade the Hague if they were to prosecute any American personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... The Biden admin cooperated with the ICC, specifically quietly handing documents to the ICC that details Putin's war crimes and urging them to submit arrest warrants for Putin. Notably Russia is also not a signatory of the ICC, so there is definitely precedent for this process that even has had the backing of the US. IMO Khan's speech today really speaks for itself. The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species. I highly urge people to go and check out his speech on the matter and to form your own opinion.
    - pyuser583 2y ago
      International rule of law is a joke. “Rule of law” means all people are equal before the law. It’s hard to pull off. Some nations have, most haven’t. But Chairman Xi isn’t going to face charges for his crimes against Uyghurs. Most countries have no rule of law, and internationally, none do.
      - himinlomax 2y ago
        The international in international law should give you a hint as to why it doesn't apply to the Uyghurs.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        There is precedent for the ICC [1], I believe a majority of all the ICC convictions were actually charging individuals committing crimes against their own people without crossing state lines. The fact that China gets away with its treatment of the Uyghurs (and plenty of other major powers that technically break ICC laws) is definitely an example of how much international law is a farce, though they aren't getting around the ICC by staying within their own borders. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_t...
nabla9 2y ago
>produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court This would mean that Netanyahu has been charged, tried and eventually acquitted of the same crimes. ICC investigates if the national proceedings are genuine. To start the process, Israeli prosecutor must prosecute.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  Israel courts have a process of pre-clearance. If the “criminal act” was pre-cleared by the Israeli courts and found lawful, that’s a big deal.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    That would make the Israeli court system “unwilling” to apply international law.
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      That just sounds like the term "unwilling" is to be arbitrarily applied when the ICC doesn't like the national court's decision.
      - 8372049 2y ago
        If Israeli courts give clearance to conduct that violates IHL, then that is certainly an unwillingness to enforce said laws.
        pyuser583 2y ago
        If Israeli courts seriously and in good faith reviews the conduct and find it lawful, then it’s simply a disagreement between two courts. Does the fact that the ICC disagrees with the Israeli courts mean the ICC is correct?
dragonwriter 2y ago
> If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? No, it does not. > ICC works in conjunction with national courts Not in the way you are suggesting. > If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong No, the ICC will rule a case inadmissible if a state has investigated and/or prosecuted that specific case (not just if it has some general level of legal functionality), unless the ICC also fines that the investigation or prosecution was not genuine (e.g., was pretextual for the purpose of, say, giving the accused an exonerating document to wave around to protect against ICC prosecution.) See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.
- Fatnino 2y ago
  Does a country have to be a signatory to the Rome Statute to be subject to it?
  - lucubratory 2y ago
    No, in fact Putin was recently subjected to it.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      Putin’s crimes were committed in Ukraine, which is a signatory (though not a party to it [yet]).
      - lucubratory 2y ago
        The "State of Palestine" (the official name in this context) is a signatory to the ICC, and is the location of the committed crimes. I guess you could technically make an argument that despite Sderot et al being an occupation under international law, because they are in the actual control of Israel which isn't a signatory then crimes committed there couldn't be prosecuted by the ICC. Given that the only party who would try to escape arrest for crimes in those areas are Hamas leadership, I doubt that's what Israel wants. Also, I doubt Hamas is willing to legally state any part of Palestine is "Israel", particularly for a relatively non-existential threat like an arrest warrant.
jd3 2y ago
The US states: > The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.[0] --- The ICC defines: > 1. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity governs the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. This distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions, including the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and right to prosecute international crimes. The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The principle of complementarity is based both on respect for the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of efficiency and effectiveness, since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witnesses and the resources to carry out proceedings. Moreover, there are limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC, a single institution, can feasibly conduct.[1] namely, > The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The US argues that the ICC has not adequately allowed this process to play out through the courts in Israel. --- The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs states: > The criteria of unwillingness or inability to carry out proceedings would involve some indication of purposely shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or a lack of intent to bring the person to justice. This may be inferred from political interference or deliberate obstruction and delay, from institutional deficiencies due to political subordination of the legal system, or procedural irregularities indicating a lack of willingness and inability to investigate or prosecute genuinely.[2] --- Imo the hermeneutics are clear, though it will be up to the lawyers from either side to make arguments in favor of/against. [0]: https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/ https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio... [1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20BB4494-70F9-4698-8E30-907F631453ED/281984/complementarity.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20B... [2]: https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-open-up-the-israeli-military-to-charges-of-war-crimes/ https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-op....
harimau777 2y ago
If the Israeli Supreme court allows his actions, then that sounds like it would fall under the "unwilling" part of "unwilling or unable to do so".
bimguy 2y ago
If that was true then Putin would also be immune to ICC prosecution, so, it doesn't seem to work like that. > it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely. And if you read the last part of the sentence you quoted it should make it pretty clear that it doesn't work like you have interpreted it.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? No. Israel’s courts ratifying alleged war crimes is the Israeli national system being “unwilling or unable to [apply international law] genuinely.”

alephnerd 2y ago
And to add on to JumpCrisscross, ICC warrants are only valid in countries that are currently member states of the ICC [0], though countries will gladly turn the other eye depending on mutual interests (eg. Narendra Modi's close relationship with Japan, France, Singapore, UAE, and Israel because they didn't enforce US travel sanctions on him when he was CM of Gujarat in the 2000s). Notably, the US is NOT a signatory of the ICC (this was a whole thing in the Iraq War days). [0] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.sv...
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  For folks interested in this process, take a look at the ICC proceedings against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman [1] regarding war crimes in Darfur. [1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Also the Frontline documentary from 2019 about Ratko Mladić's trial [0] (Edit: I'm a dummy, this was the ICTY, not the ICC, but the ICTY was the precursor model of the ICC in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars). [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo
- bawolff 2y ago
  I don't think this is relavent to the complementary principle. If the israeli judicial system made a good faith attempt to prosecute this crime following the standards of international law, it would probably prevent this warrant even though Israel is not a party to the court.
- sweeter 2y ago
  It kind of gives the game away when you see that the US is not a signatory but had a big say in appointing the Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in 2021 and have instituted the "Invade the Hague Act" that would allow the US to invade the Hague if they were to prosecute any American personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... The Biden admin cooperated with the ICC, specifically quietly handing documents to the ICC that details Putin's war crimes and urging them to submit arrest warrants for Putin. Notably Russia is also not a signatory of the ICC, so there is definitely precedent for this process that even has had the backing of the US. IMO Khan's speech today really speaks for itself. The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species. I highly urge people to go and check out his speech on the matter and to form your own opinion.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    International rule of law is a joke. “Rule of law” means all people are equal before the law. It’s hard to pull off. Some nations have, most haven’t. But Chairman Xi isn’t going to face charges for his crimes against Uyghurs. Most countries have no rule of law, and internationally, none do.
    - himinlomax 2y ago
      The international in international law should give you a hint as to why it doesn't apply to the Uyghurs.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        There is precedent for the ICC [1], I believe a majority of all the ICC convictions were actually charging individuals committing crimes against their own people without crossing state lines. The fact that China gets away with its treatment of the Uyghurs (and plenty of other major powers that technically break ICC laws) is definitely an example of how much international law is a farce, though they aren't getting around the ICC by staying within their own borders. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_t...

nabla9 2y ago

>produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court This would mean that Netanyahu has been charged, tried and eventually acquitted of the same crimes. ICC investigates if the national proceedings are genuine. To start the process, Israeli prosecutor must prosecute.

pyuser583 2y ago
Israel courts have a process of pre-clearance. If the “criminal act” was pre-cleared by the Israeli courts and found lawful, that’s a big deal.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  That would make the Israeli court system “unwilling” to apply international law.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    That just sounds like the term "unwilling" is to be arbitrarily applied when the ICC doesn't like the national court's decision.
    - 8372049 2y ago
      If Israeli courts give clearance to conduct that violates IHL, then that is certainly an unwillingness to enforce said laws.
      - pyuser583 2y ago
        If Israeli courts seriously and in good faith reviews the conduct and find it lawful, then it’s simply a disagreement between two courts. Does the fact that the ICC disagrees with the Israeli courts mean the ICC is correct?

dragonwriter 2y ago

> If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? No, it does not. > ICC works in conjunction with national courts Not in the way you are suggesting. > If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong No, the ICC will rule a case inadmissible if a state has investigated and/or prosecuted that specific case (not just if it has some general level of legal functionality), unless the ICC also fines that the investigation or prosecution was not genuine (e.g., was pretextual for the purpose of, say, giving the accused an exonerating document to wave around to protect against ICC prosecution.) See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.

Fatnino 2y ago
Does a country have to be a signatory to the Rome Statute to be subject to it?
- lucubratory 2y ago
  No, in fact Putin was recently subjected to it.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    Putin’s crimes were committed in Ukraine, which is a signatory (though not a party to it [yet]).
    - lucubratory 2y ago
      The "State of Palestine" (the official name in this context) is a signatory to the ICC, and is the location of the committed crimes. I guess you could technically make an argument that despite Sderot et al being an occupation under international law, because they are in the actual control of Israel which isn't a signatory then crimes committed there couldn't be prosecuted by the ICC. Given that the only party who would try to escape arrest for crimes in those areas are Hamas leadership, I doubt that's what Israel wants. Also, I doubt Hamas is willing to legally state any part of Palestine is "Israel", particularly for a relatively non-existential threat like an arrest warrant.

jd3 2y ago

The US states: > The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.[0] --- The ICC defines: > 1. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity governs the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. This distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions, including the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and right to prosecute international crimes. The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The principle of complementarity is based both on respect for the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of efficiency and effectiveness, since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witnesses and the resources to carry out proceedings. Moreover, there are limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC, a single institution, can feasibly conduct.[1] namely, > The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The US argues that the ICC has not adequately allowed this process to play out through the courts in Israel. --- The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs states: > The criteria of unwillingness or inability to carry out proceedings would involve some indication of purposely shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or a lack of intent to bring the person to justice. This may be inferred from political interference or deliberate obstruction and delay, from institutional deficiencies due to political subordination of the legal system, or procedural irregularities indicating a lack of willingness and inability to investigate or prosecute genuinely.[2] --- Imo the hermeneutics are clear, though it will be up to the lawyers from either side to make arguments in favor of/against. [0]: https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/ https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio... [1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20BB4494-70F9-4698-8E30-907F631453ED/281984/complementarity.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20B... [2]: https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-open-up-the-israeli-military-to-charges-of-war-crimes/ https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-op....

harimau777 2y ago

If the Israeli Supreme court allows his actions, then that sounds like it would fall under the "unwilling" part of "unwilling or unable to do so".

bimguy 2y ago

If that was true then Putin would also be immune to ICC prosecution, so, it doesn't seem to work like that. > it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely. And if you read the last part of the sentence you quoted it should make it pretty clear that it doesn't work like you have interpreted it.