8 ms·

Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of. It has a history of being very transparent in its deci

Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of. It has a history of being very transparent in its decisions and is widely recognized as being neutral and fair in their decision making process. Of course the person charged and found guilty of a crime will argue against the court. Disagreement, even if valid, doesn't change the recognized authority of this court even if the "teeth" are extremely limited.

seabass-labrax 2y ago
Israel don't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. Palestine, however, does, and therefore the ICC consider these allegations within their jurisdiction. A relevant point is that the UK (under the previous Conservative party government) requested the opportunity to dispute the allegations of war crimes based on this complication, but the new British government did not choose to continue with the objection. No other countries have made objections.
- immibis 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - seabass-labrax 2y ago
    The government of Germany clearly prefer to side with Israel on any matter related to Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter), but in fairness it has taken this long for the ICC's prosecutor to bring a case. The real tests will begin if, for instance, Netanyahu visits Germany, because that will trigger an obligation for Germany to arrest him. There may of course already be domestic German laws which arms sales to Israel may be breaking, but as far as I'm aware Germany has only had a duty to cooperate with the ICC since the warrant was issued earlier today.
    - frm88 2y ago
      Nicaragua had a go at the German government in March 2024 re. arms sales and could not prevail [0]. I just read an article that claims they have already made a new attempt, which could be more successful in the current situation [1 - in German, sorry] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._Germany [1] https://nachrichten.ag/europa/waffenexporte-an-israel-in-gefahr-icc-haftbefehle-sorgen-fuer-umdenken/ https://nachrichten.ag/europa/waffenexporte-an-israel-in-gef...
  - bawolff 2y ago
    > Germany, the second biggest sponsor of mass slaughter (presently and historically) also claims to be bound by this court, but for some reason ignores it when it is in Israeli interests to do so. When has germany ever ignored the ICC? I dont think there is a single instance of that, whether involving israel or otherwise.
- bawolff 2y ago
  The challenge wasn't based on exactly that, they were trying to argue that a treaty palestine signed with israel precluded palestine from giving icc juridsiction that it didn't have itself. That said, if it ever gets to trial, the defendants will almost certainly try to challenge it on that basis. Realistically though i think the chance of that type of challenge succeding is unlikely. International courts generally are above domestic law. They probably have a better chance of convincing the court that palestine isn't a state and thus cannot sign the rome statue (which is also a long shot imo)
  - HappyPanacea 2y ago
    > Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of. They were replying to this part of the comment which was factually incorrect (Israel did not recognize ICC authority) not on what the challenge on jurisdiction was
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- loceng 2y ago
  Good thing that's not how laws are formed - "your" not recognizing authority doesn't mean "you" haven't committed the war crimes or other illegal act that international organization has charged you with; so far it's worked that veto power can immediately suppress action even when the rest of the organized-civilized world is against you, where so far most international organizations have been for theatre - but where we have an opportunity for them to finally have teeth.
mananaysiempre 2y ago
> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept For what it’s worth, Israel signed the Rome Statute establishing the court in 2000 but declared in 2002 it no longer intends to ratify it[1]. (Which, I guess, is marginally better than the US, which has threatened The Hague with military invasion in case any arrests are made[2]. But not by much.) TFA specifically points out that “States are not entitled to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.” [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute#Signatories_which_have_not_ratified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- mmastrac 2y ago
  As a follow-up to [2], even more interesting is the text of covered persons: "military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand"
  - buckle8017 2y ago
    That's not the list of covered persons. The act bars military aid to any country that is a signatory to the court, except those countries.
    - mananaysiempre 2y ago
      It’s both, effectively, but the GP is quoting the correct copy of the list. The prohibition you mention is in 22 USC 7426: > (a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and effective 1 year after the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...] > (d) EXEMPTION.—The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not apply to the government of— > (1) a NATO member country; > (2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand); or > (3) Taiwan. The threat I was talking about is in 22 USC 7427: > (a) AUTHORITY.—The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. > (b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED.—The authority of sub-section (a) shall extend to the following persons: > (1) Covered United States persons. > (2) Covered allied persons. > (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government. > [...] with “covered persons” defined in 22 USC 7432 by essentially the same list as above, as long as those countries do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC: > [...] > (3) COVERED ALLIED PERSONS.—The term “covered allied persons” means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. > (4) COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS.—The term “covered United States persons” means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...]
bawolff 2y ago
> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of As far as i am aware, this is a false statement. Israel has been opposed to the ICC since its inception (originally because the first version had a judge selection mechanism they thought was biased against them, although i am sure there are other reasons they object, especially relating to their settlements). Perhaps you are confusing the ICC with the ICJ, which are totally different things.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
usaar333 2y ago
Neither Israel nor the de-facto government of Gaza they are fighting ever accepted the authority of the ICC; neither has signed the Rome Treaty. The ICC authority is being derived from the Palestinian Authority applying for membership and the Court deciding earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine is a state, the PA is the legitimate government of Palestine, and that Gaza is territory under its jurisdiction.
- klipt 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    This case was not filed by any country, it was directly filed by Karim Khan, an employee of the ICC. The court that requires a country to file is the ICJ. Iran is already a signatory to the ICJ and there is nothing that would legally prevent them from filing a case if they wanted to.
    - seabass-labrax 2y ago
      I was also curious about parent's claim so I did some searching of my own. The claim is from a report published a few days ago called 'South Africa, Hamas, Iran, and Qatar: The Hijacking of the ANC and the International Court of Justice': https://isgap.org/follow-the-money/ https://isgap.org/follow-the-money/ Its author, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, is ostensibly American, although I can find no indication of its incorporation in the USA. The Israeli government is the largest donor to the organization according to 'The Forward', which is a newspaper incorporated as a non-profit charity in the USA.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > Court deciding earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine is a state, the PA is the legitimate government of Palestine, and that Gaza is territory under its jurisdiction. I think you are overstating it. They made a provisional decision, but just for the purpose of if the investigation can go forward. The decision does not decide whether or not palestine is a state in general, and if this ever goes to trial the defendants can still challenge this decision.
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
[flagged]
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of Israel never ratified the Rome statute. The US withdrew but Israel never ratified it in the first place. > It has a history of being very transparent in its decisions and is widely recognized as being neutral and fair in their decision making process There is a long section on criticism against the ICC, not just from Israel, that suggests otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

seabass-labrax 2y ago

Israel don't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. Palestine, however, does, and therefore the ICC consider these allegations within their jurisdiction. A relevant point is that the UK (under the previous Conservative party government) requested the opportunity to dispute the allegations of war crimes based on this complication, but the new British government did not choose to continue with the objection. No other countries have made objections.

immibis 2y ago
[flagged]
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  The government of Germany clearly prefer to side with Israel on any matter related to Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter), but in fairness it has taken this long for the ICC's prosecutor to bring a case. The real tests will begin if, for instance, Netanyahu visits Germany, because that will trigger an obligation for Germany to arrest him. There may of course already be domestic German laws which arms sales to Israel may be breaking, but as far as I'm aware Germany has only had a duty to cooperate with the ICC since the warrant was issued earlier today.
  - frm88 2y ago
    Nicaragua had a go at the German government in March 2024 re. arms sales and could not prevail [0]. I just read an article that claims they have already made a new attempt, which could be more successful in the current situation [1 - in German, sorry] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._Germany [1] https://nachrichten.ag/europa/waffenexporte-an-israel-in-gefahr-icc-haftbefehle-sorgen-fuer-umdenken/ https://nachrichten.ag/europa/waffenexporte-an-israel-in-gef...
- bawolff 2y ago
  > Germany, the second biggest sponsor of mass slaughter (presently and historically) also claims to be bound by this court, but for some reason ignores it when it is in Israeli interests to do so. When has germany ever ignored the ICC? I dont think there is a single instance of that, whether involving israel or otherwise.
bawolff 2y ago
The challenge wasn't based on exactly that, they were trying to argue that a treaty palestine signed with israel precluded palestine from giving icc juridsiction that it didn't have itself. That said, if it ever gets to trial, the defendants will almost certainly try to challenge it on that basis. Realistically though i think the chance of that type of challenge succeding is unlikely. International courts generally are above domestic law. They probably have a better chance of convincing the court that palestine isn't a state and thus cannot sign the rome statue (which is also a long shot imo)
- HappyPanacea 2y ago
  > Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of. They were replying to this part of the comment which was factually incorrect (Israel did not recognize ICC authority) not on what the challenge on jurisdiction was
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
loceng 2y ago
Good thing that's not how laws are formed - "your" not recognizing authority doesn't mean "you" haven't committed the war crimes or other illegal act that international organization has charged you with; so far it's worked that veto power can immediately suppress action even when the rest of the organized-civilized world is against you, where so far most international organizations have been for theatre - but where we have an opportunity for them to finally have teeth.

mananaysiempre 2y ago

> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept For what it’s worth, Israel signed the Rome Statute establishing the court in 2000 but declared in 2002 it no longer intends to ratify it[1]. (Which, I guess, is marginally better than the US, which has threatened The Hague with military invasion in case any arrests are made[2]. But not by much.) TFA specifically points out that “States are not entitled to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.” [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute#Signatories_which_have_not_ratified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

mmastrac 2y ago
As a follow-up to [2], even more interesting is the text of covered persons: "military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand"
- buckle8017 2y ago
  That's not the list of covered persons. The act bars military aid to any country that is a signatory to the court, except those countries.
  - mananaysiempre 2y ago
    It’s both, effectively, but the GP is quoting the correct copy of the list. The prohibition you mention is in 22 USC 7426: > (a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and effective 1 year after the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...] > (d) EXEMPTION.—The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not apply to the government of— > (1) a NATO member country; > (2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand); or > (3) Taiwan. The threat I was talking about is in 22 USC 7427: > (a) AUTHORITY.—The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. > (b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED.—The authority of sub-section (a) shall extend to the following persons: > (1) Covered United States persons. > (2) Covered allied persons. > (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government. > [...] with “covered persons” defined in 22 USC 7432 by essentially the same list as above, as long as those countries do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC: > [...] > (3) COVERED ALLIED PERSONS.—The term “covered allied persons” means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. > (4) COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS.—The term “covered United States persons” means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...]

bawolff 2y ago

> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of As far as i am aware, this is a false statement. Israel has been opposed to the ICC since its inception (originally because the first version had a judge selection mechanism they thought was biased against them, although i am sure there are other reasons they object, especially relating to their settlements). Perhaps you are confusing the ICC with the ICJ, which are totally different things.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

usaar333 2y ago

Neither Israel nor the de-facto government of Gaza they are fighting ever accepted the authority of the ICC; neither has signed the Rome Treaty. The ICC authority is being derived from the Palestinian Authority applying for membership and the Court deciding earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine is a state, the PA is the legitimate government of Palestine, and that Gaza is territory under its jurisdiction.

klipt 2y ago
[flagged]
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  This case was not filed by any country, it was directly filed by Karim Khan, an employee of the ICC. The court that requires a country to file is the ICJ. Iran is already a signatory to the ICJ and there is nothing that would legally prevent them from filing a case if they wanted to.
  - seabass-labrax 2y ago
    I was also curious about parent's claim so I did some searching of my own. The claim is from a report published a few days ago called 'South Africa, Hamas, Iran, and Qatar: The Hijacking of the ANC and the International Court of Justice': https://isgap.org/follow-the-money/ https://isgap.org/follow-the-money/ Its author, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, is ostensibly American, although I can find no indication of its incorporation in the USA. The Israeli government is the largest donor to the organization according to 'The Forward', which is a newspaper incorporated as a non-profit charity in the USA.
bawolff 2y ago
> Court deciding earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine is a state, the PA is the legitimate government of Palestine, and that Gaza is territory under its jurisdiction. I think you are overstating it. They made a provisional decision, but just for the purpose of if the investigation can go forward. The decision does not decide whether or not palestine is a state in general, and if this ever goes to trial the defendants can still challenge this decision.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

[flagged]

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

> Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of Israel never ratified the Rome statute. The US withdrew but Israel never ratified it in the first place. > It has a history of being very transparent in its decisions and is widely recognized as being neutral and fair in their decision making process There is a long section on criticism against the ICC, not just from Israel, that suggests otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court