6 ms·

If you are an expert on international law you can correct me, but I was under the impression that jurisdiction applies to where the crime is committed, not wher

If you are an expert on international law you can correct me, but I was under the impression that jurisdiction applies to where the crime is committed, not where the perpetrator resides. So when an Israeli commits a war crime in Palestine, Palestinian laws apply, and if the Palestinian courts are unwilling, or unable to prosecute said crimes, ICC steps in and takes on the case. This is no different to how Putin is being charged for crimes he is committing in Ukraine, despite Russia not being a member of the ICC. I think there is an exception if the Israeli (or Russia in the case of Putin) justice system would prosecute the crimes fairly, then the ICC passes on jurisdiction, but as we clearly see, there is no indication that that will happen. > The people who literally go out and demonstrate against Netanyahu and his government every day. That is fine and dandy, but completely irrelevant while he is not being charged for war crimes by the Israeli justice system. If he goes to prison for corruption that isn’t exactly justice for the war crimes he has ordered committed.

tptacek 1y ago
There is no overarching system of international law, appearances to the contrary. The signatories to the Rome statute agree to assist the ICC in investigating and prosecuting cases, which may or may not involve citizens of Rome signatory countries. The ICC isn't magic. Most of the world's population resides in non-member countries. Unlike an ordinary domestic court, the ICC cannot compel testimony; it can't even host an adversarial hearing in situations (like this one) where both parties don't agree to the premise of the ICC's legitimacy. We could get more specific about the limitations and legitimacy of the ICC, if you wanted to.
invalidname 1y ago
> I think there is an exception if the Israeli (or Russia in the case of Putin) justice system would prosecute the crimes fairly, then the ICC passes on jurisdiction, but as we clearly see, there is no indication that that will happen. Right now the Israeli court system is prosecuting the individual assaults from Sde Teiman (the rape claim). During the evidence stage it turns out that the allegations seem to be very overblown, there was an assault. Not rape. The problem is that it's very hart to have a properly functioning justice system when people from the extreme right are blaming you of "working with the enemy". External action and social media are causing a problem instead of focusing on specific wrongdoings. This is deeply problematic and doesn't help. > > The people who literally go out and demonstrate against Netanyahu and his government every day. > That is fine and dandy, but completely irrelevant while he is not being charged for war crimes by the Israeli justice system. If he goes to prison for corruption that isn’t exactly justice for the war crimes he has ordered committed. Because there is literally no evidence of that. The only evidence ICC brought forth is declaratory intent. Members of the government said some pretty horrible things. That is indeed awful, but not a war crime, genocide or even ethnic cleansing. After the last ceasefire, Palestinians returned to their homes disproving a large part of the ethnic cleansing allegations. By modern definitions of war in an urban area this was relatively clean. Like all western democracies Israel has separation of branches. The army is separate and even if a minister wants to perform a war crime, he can't just command it. There is a chain of command and the legitimacy of the orders is evaluated along the command chain. That means war crimes do happen, like they do in every war. Due to social media and the nature of this specific war they are far more visible (and often faked). Should they be prosecuted, sure. But focusing on that alone is problematic as it again, incentivizes the worst players and escalates the conflict. This is a political problem, not a legal problem.
- runarberg 1y ago
  Like I said, I‘m not an expert on international law, but I have a feeling you might simply be wrong here. This is HN so I went and looked at the relevant documents[1][2], and from my reading I gathered that: a) The jurisdiction was established way back in 2021[1], and b) The court doesn’t deal with evidence directly when issuing indictments, but rather reasonable grounds[2], or as the news of the warrants stated: > With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu, born on 21 October 1949, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr Gallant, born on 8 November 1958, Minister of Defence of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. > The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population. The alleged crimes are summarized in [2] (I’m not quoting them here because it is basically 2/3 of the whole article, so go read it your self if you care). But I have to agree with the court there is reasonable grounds here. Other courts (like the ICJ) and human rights organizations, like the Human Rights Watch[3][4] and Amnesty International[5][6] have provided plenty of evidence to support the claim of reasonable grounds. > But focusing on that [prosecution of war crimes] alone is problematic as it again, incentivizes the worst players and escalates the conflict. > This is a political problem, not a legal problem. I disagree. This is moral problem, and is fundamental to the rule of law. If Israel gets away with these crimes, it threatens the very foundation of the rule of law, and the whole international system is in peril. You can argue that was also the case with the Iraq war, and I would agree with you. But Israel’s crimes are so grave, and so obvious, that if we let that slide because of some vague—and honestly suspiciously convenient—notion of politics, there is nothing stopping bad actors from creating a political crisis to start the next set of atrocities. 1: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180a0ebd9.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/090... 2: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p... 3: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/15/gaza-latest-israeli-plan-inches-closer-extermination https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/15/gaza-latest-israeli-plan... 4: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-exterminat... 5: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter... 6: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/05/israel-opt-two-months-of-cruel-and-inhumane-siege-are-further-evidence-of-israels-genocidal-intent-in-gaza/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/05/israel-opt-tw...
dlubarov 1y ago
The jurisdictional argument you're alluding to is based on this bit of the Rome Statute: > the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute ... (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred ... The alleged crimes occurred in Gaza, so the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction if the associated state is a signatory. The argument goes that the PLO signed the Rome Statue on behalf of the "State of Palestine", which claims Gaza as part of its territory. The questionable part to me is that in reality, Hamas is the government of Gaza. The international community can declare another entity it prefers as the de jure government, but it's fairly meaningless when that other entity has never controlled or governed Gaza. Even if we accept the idea that the ICC has jurisdiction under its own rules, that means nothing to a country like Israel which never accepted those rules, and also can't really expect a fair trial.
- runarberg 1y ago
  > The questionable part to me is that in reality, Hamas is the government of Gaza. As far as I remember Hamas welcomed the ICC indictments against the Israeli officials (but opposed the now dropped indictments against the Hamas leaders). But also how is this different from the Russian de facto governance over Donbas and other Russian occupied regions in Ukraine, where the alleged crimes occurred? Or am I mistaken in believing that the indictments over Putin are less controversial?
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    With the ICC's indictment of Putin, my understanding is that at the time Ukraine hadn't formally ratified the Rome Statue yet (so the clause I quoted wouldn't apply), but they had accepted the ICC's jurisdiction in a more limited capacity which gave the ICC a slightly different way of asserting jurisdiction. As far as I know, Hamas is not a party to the Rome Statue and also has not accepted ICC jurisdiction the way Ukraine did; Hamas welcoming a particular case doesn't really help with the ICC's jurisdictional claim. (I'm also not sure the ICC would allow Hamas to become a party or accept jurisdiction, since they're operating in a sort of alternate reality where a different entity is the government of Gaza, but that's another matter.)

tptacek 1y ago

There is no overarching system of international law, appearances to the contrary. The signatories to the Rome statute agree to assist the ICC in investigating and prosecuting cases, which may or may not involve citizens of Rome signatory countries. The ICC isn't magic. Most of the world's population resides in non-member countries. Unlike an ordinary domestic court, the ICC cannot compel testimony; it can't even host an adversarial hearing in situations (like this one) where both parties don't agree to the premise of the ICC's legitimacy. We could get more specific about the limitations and legitimacy of the ICC, if you wanted to.

invalidname 1y ago

> I think there is an exception if the Israeli (or Russia in the case of Putin) justice system would prosecute the crimes fairly, then the ICC passes on jurisdiction, but as we clearly see, there is no indication that that will happen. Right now the Israeli court system is prosecuting the individual assaults from Sde Teiman (the rape claim). During the evidence stage it turns out that the allegations seem to be very overblown, there was an assault. Not rape. The problem is that it's very hart to have a properly functioning justice system when people from the extreme right are blaming you of "working with the enemy". External action and social media are causing a problem instead of focusing on specific wrongdoings. This is deeply problematic and doesn't help. > > The people who literally go out and demonstrate against Netanyahu and his government every day. > That is fine and dandy, but completely irrelevant while he is not being charged for war crimes by the Israeli justice system. If he goes to prison for corruption that isn’t exactly justice for the war crimes he has ordered committed. Because there is literally no evidence of that. The only evidence ICC brought forth is declaratory intent. Members of the government said some pretty horrible things. That is indeed awful, but not a war crime, genocide or even ethnic cleansing. After the last ceasefire, Palestinians returned to their homes disproving a large part of the ethnic cleansing allegations. By modern definitions of war in an urban area this was relatively clean. Like all western democracies Israel has separation of branches. The army is separate and even if a minister wants to perform a war crime, he can't just command it. There is a chain of command and the legitimacy of the orders is evaluated along the command chain. That means war crimes do happen, like they do in every war. Due to social media and the nature of this specific war they are far more visible (and often faked). Should they be prosecuted, sure. But focusing on that alone is problematic as it again, incentivizes the worst players and escalates the conflict. This is a political problem, not a legal problem.

runarberg 1y ago
Like I said, I‘m not an expert on international law, but I have a feeling you might simply be wrong here. This is HN so I went and looked at the relevant documents[1][2], and from my reading I gathered that: a) The jurisdiction was established way back in 2021[1], and b) The court doesn’t deal with evidence directly when issuing indictments, but rather reasonable grounds[2], or as the news of the warrants stated: > With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu, born on 21 October 1949, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr Gallant, born on 8 November 1958, Minister of Defence of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. > The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population. The alleged crimes are summarized in [2] (I’m not quoting them here because it is basically 2/3 of the whole article, so go read it your self if you care). But I have to agree with the court there is reasonable grounds here. Other courts (like the ICJ) and human rights organizations, like the Human Rights Watch[3][4] and Amnesty International[5][6] have provided plenty of evidence to support the claim of reasonable grounds. > But focusing on that [prosecution of war crimes] alone is problematic as it again, incentivizes the worst players and escalates the conflict. > This is a political problem, not a legal problem. I disagree. This is moral problem, and is fundamental to the rule of law. If Israel gets away with these crimes, it threatens the very foundation of the rule of law, and the whole international system is in peril. You can argue that was also the case with the Iraq war, and I would agree with you. But Israel’s crimes are so grave, and so obvious, that if we let that slide because of some vague—and honestly suspiciously convenient—notion of politics, there is nothing stopping bad actors from creating a political crisis to start the next set of atrocities. 1: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180a0ebd9.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/090... 2: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p... 3: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/15/gaza-latest-israeli-plan-inches-closer-extermination https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/15/gaza-latest-israeli-plan... 4: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-exterminat... 5: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter... 6: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/05/israel-opt-two-months-of-cruel-and-inhumane-siege-are-further-evidence-of-israels-genocidal-intent-in-gaza/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/05/israel-opt-tw...

dlubarov 1y ago

The jurisdictional argument you're alluding to is based on this bit of the Rome Statute: > the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute ... (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred ... The alleged crimes occurred in Gaza, so the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction if the associated state is a signatory. The argument goes that the PLO signed the Rome Statue on behalf of the "State of Palestine", which claims Gaza as part of its territory. The questionable part to me is that in reality, Hamas is the government of Gaza. The international community can declare another entity it prefers as the de jure government, but it's fairly meaningless when that other entity has never controlled or governed Gaza. Even if we accept the idea that the ICC has jurisdiction under its own rules, that means nothing to a country like Israel which never accepted those rules, and also can't really expect a fair trial.

runarberg 1y ago
> The questionable part to me is that in reality, Hamas is the government of Gaza. As far as I remember Hamas welcomed the ICC indictments against the Israeli officials (but opposed the now dropped indictments against the Hamas leaders). But also how is this different from the Russian de facto governance over Donbas and other Russian occupied regions in Ukraine, where the alleged crimes occurred? Or am I mistaken in believing that the indictments over Putin are less controversial?
- dlubarov 1y ago
  With the ICC's indictment of Putin, my understanding is that at the time Ukraine hadn't formally ratified the Rome Statue yet (so the clause I quoted wouldn't apply), but they had accepted the ICC's jurisdiction in a more limited capacity which gave the ICC a slightly different way of asserting jurisdiction. As far as I know, Hamas is not a party to the Rome Statue and also has not accepted ICC jurisdiction the way Ukraine did; Hamas welcoming a particular case doesn't really help with the ICC's jurisdictional claim. (I'm also not sure the ICC would allow Hamas to become a party or accept jurisdiction, since they're operating in a sort of alternate reality where a different entity is the government of Gaza, but that's another matter.)