3 ms·
I am not following your logic at all. The League of Nations had no jurisdiction over the Germans (that I'm aware of). The matter of countries doing their own
by YZF 1y ago
I am not following your logic at all.
The League of Nations had no jurisdiction over the Germans (that I'm aware of).
The matter of countries doing their own investigation is fundamental to the ICC and so is the matter of its jurisdiction being restricted to member countries. That is part of the convention that established it.
The police in contrast, in a certain country, has jurisdiction and the power to arrest criminals. The ICCs powers come from the countries that are members of it extending their powers to this body via mutual agreement.
The more proper analogy would be that me and a bunch of friends will issue an arrest warrant and put you in jail because we feel like it.
EDIT: This is known as the principle of complementarity: 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."
Re: Jurisdiction:
"In the absence of a UNSC referral of an act of aggression, the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation on his own initiative or upon request from a State Party. The Prosecutor shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. Where no such determination has been made within six months after the date of notification to the UNSC by the Prosecutor of the situation, the Prosecutor may nonetheless proceed with the investigation, provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation. Also, under these circumstances, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime of aggression when committed by a national or on the territory of a State Party that has not ratified or accepted these amendments."
The Palestinians and Gaza are not a state party. Israel is not a state party. and the UNSC has not referred this to the ICC. Therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction.
- troad 1y agoWrong. Palestine is a state party to the ICC, effective 1 April 2015. The ICC has jurisdiction on the territory of its member states. It is the position of both the ICC itself and the United Nations General Assembly that Palestine is a state and ergo entitled to be a member of the ICC. Whether Israel (or you) accept this definition of Palestine is largely irrelevant. Moreover, whether Israel is or is not a state party to the ICC is completely without bearing on the ICC investigation in question, since Gaza is not part of Israel's territory under any definition, including Israel's own. To my knowledge, no state recognises Gaza as part of Israel, including Israel itself. TLDR: It is Palestine's membership of ICC that results in the ICC lawfully exercising its jurisdiction on the territory of Gaza.
- YZF 1y agoPalestine is not a state. That much is fact. It's not a matter of "position". It does not meet any definition of state. The UN also does not consider Palestine to be a state and it is not a member of the UN. The UN and the ICC can declare the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat. Pretty much nobody recognizes the "state" of Palestine.
- troad 1y agoThe ICC and the UNGA recognise Palestine as a state. A sizeable and ever increasing majority of UN members recognise Palestine as a state, and they make up the vast majority of the world by any measure - population, size, economy, what have you. You are free to assert that you have fact on your side, that there is no dispute, that it's "not a matter of 'position'" all you want, but none of it matters. Your position on whether Palestine is a state (or mine, for that matter) is about as relevant to the membership of the ICC as our respective positions on the planethood of Pluto. It's fascinating that Israel thinks it can dictate the membership of a body that it refuses to recognise, let alone join. The ICC decides who is a member of the ICC, and the ICC - consistent with widespread state practice in every continent on Earth - considers Palestine a state.
- YZF 1y agoThe situation isn't as simple as you're describing it even from the ICC's perspective. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-its-decision-prosecutors-request-related-territorial https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-... "In today's decision, Pre-Trial Chamber I recalled that the ICC is not constitutionally competent to determine matters of statehood that would bind the international community. By ruling on the territorial scope of its jurisdiction, the Chamber is neither adjudicating a border dispute under international law nor prejudging the question of any future borders. The Chamber's ruling is for the sole purpose of defining the Court's territorial jurisdiction. " And yes, who am I to argue with China, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt, Belarus, Syria, Sudan, and their friends. Clearly Palestine is a state. EDIT: for a more coherent argument: https://www.drake.edu/media/departmentsoffices/dussj/2006-2003documents/PalestineGiridhar.pdf https://www.drake.edu/media/departmentsoffices/dussj/2006-20... EDIT2: Asking the various AIs supports my position. Despite the recognition of various countries Palestine is not legally a state as it does not meet the criteria for being one. I do agree that the Palestinians have been very effective in fighting Israel in the diplomatic arena but unless they actually negotiate in good faith with Israel I wouldn't count on their future prospects to actually have their own country. Palestinians in general also oppose the two state solution anyways.