3 ms·

> Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? Well, that happened. Israel presented an argument that the investigation legally must end, as they haven'

> Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? Well, that happened. Israel presented an argument that the investigation legally must end, as they haven't consented to ICC jurisdiction; the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (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...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory. The US has always taken an extremely aggressive stance that this theory of ICC jurisdiction is unacceptable. "It is a fundamental principle of international law that a treaty is binding upon its parties only and that it does not create obligations for nonparties without their consent to be bound", as 22 USC §7421 puts it. (If you're old enough, you may recognize this as part of the bipartisan "Hague Invasion Act" of 2002, widely understood as a threat of military force against anyone who tries to enforce ICC jurisdiction on a citizen of the US or its non-ICC allies.)

bawolff 1y ago
> the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory. Its a little more complicated than that. The dispute is also about if palestine is a "state" and thus able to consent (and i'm not sure, but possibly what the territorial extent of Palestine is. it probably doesnt matter, but the fact that the official government of Palestine lost control of the gaza strip in a civil war a long time ago is another winkle in this whole thing) While the court initially rejected Israel's challenge, the appeal court reverses the decision, and threw it back to the lower court, which is now deliberating on it https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appeals-chamber-reverses-pre-trial-chambers-decision-israels https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appea... . As far as i understand most observers think this is an extreme long shot on the part of Israel and they are unlikely to win this challenge. [IANAL, and far from an expert at this, this stuff is complicated, it is very possible i got the details wrong]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
HappyPanacea 1y ago
I think the more interesting point here is that some members of ICC don't recognize Palestine as a state so they don't have a reason to accept ICC jurisdiction because essentially they will be ceding recognition of states to the ICC which seems unlikely.
- tguvot 1y ago
  and majority of those who recognize palestine as state, do not recognize any specific borders.

bawolff 1y ago

> the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory. Its a little more complicated than that. The dispute is also about if palestine is a "state" and thus able to consent (and i'm not sure, but possibly what the territorial extent of Palestine is. it probably doesnt matter, but the fact that the official government of Palestine lost control of the gaza strip in a civil war a long time ago is another winkle in this whole thing) While the court initially rejected Israel's challenge, the appeal court reverses the decision, and threw it back to the lower court, which is now deliberating on it https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appeals-chamber-reverses-pre-trial-chambers-decision-israels https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appea... . As far as i understand most observers think this is an extreme long shot on the part of Israel and they are unlikely to win this challenge. [IANAL, and far from an expert at this, this stuff is complicated, it is very possible i got the details wrong]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

HappyPanacea 1y ago

I think the more interesting point here is that some members of ICC don't recognize Palestine as a state so they don't have a reason to accept ICC jurisdiction because essentially they will be ceding recognition of states to the ICC which seems unlikely.

tguvot 1y ago
and majority of those who recognize palestine as state, do not recognize any specific borders.