Impeding relief aid to Gaza may be a crime under ICC jurisdiction, prosecutor says
reuters.com
Impeding relief supplies to Gaza's population may constitute a crime under the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction, the court's top prosecutor told a news conference in Egypt on Sunday.
Karim Khan also said Israel must make "discernable efforts, without further delay to make sure civilians receive basic foods, medicine".
Israel, which is not a member of the ICC, has previously rejected the court's jurisdiction and does not formally engage with its investigations.
You are viewing a single comment
what does that mean in this context though? got curious so I looked it up:
is the UN going to force open the border and then guard the convoy? no - the UN is basically powerless here. Arab majority countries in the area that really hate Israel (Iran, some members of the Arab League, etc) might get pressured into doing something, but I rather suspect they wont stick their necks out for a tiny bit of land on the wrong side of the Israeli border - the amount of risk involved isnt really worth it.
no, even if the ICC did rule against Israel, it really wouldnt change anything. this feels more like some nobody prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. it's cheap and easy PR.
It may not physically change things on the ground but it’ll be a harder for Western countries to support Israel as the “good guys”.
Every little bit helps, the more of the world that learns Israel and condemns them the better.
Western nations, many of whom have their own dark history of settler colonialism, would rather abandon the ICC than acknowledge Israeli war crimes. Mark my words.
Which then makes it easier for people to argue that we aren't the good guys, rhetoric useful for possibly changing our foreign policies. It's not ideal, but it's something.
It's still a good legal exercise for lawyers to go if we did have jurisdiction it would have broken our rules. And they can argue about that. Waiting for the day they get jurisdiction.
For what it's worth I believe the Palestinian territories have signed the ICC agreement. So it would be a very interesting question of law, if the Palestinians delivered ICC violators to the ICC in the EU. That would be a real sticky situation
it's an interesting thought experiment for sure - though I'm not sure how a Palestinian force would really be able to prove it's a rendition and not kidnapping (and what the fallout of that would be). is photographic evidence permissible or would they need a witnessed statement/admission of guilt, etc?
I can't speak for every legal jurisdiction, but as far as I'm aware, every jurisdiction in the world, accepts criminals delivered to them in any form they're delivered. They may be delivered illegally, but they still accept the criminal.
At least as far as the US, UK, France, Canada, are concerned... I'm sure many other jurisdictions too
An ICC warrant being issued against someone severely limits their travel options. As soon as they touch down in the territory of a state party to the ICC, that state is treaty-bound to arrest the subject of the warrant, diplomatic immunity notwithstanding. Just ask Putin.
if the individual is illegally seized, doesnt that open the group that captured them to judicial action? like, anyone can claim someone is something that they arent - if they have no way of proving it then it's basically human trafficking... seems like this sort of thing would need to be decided long before any actual action was taken.
Sure, having someone illegally delivered to a jurisdiction opens up the kidnappers to criminal prosecution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
But historically most courts will say the kidnapping is a separate criminal matter....
I don't think calling out Israeli war crimes is "good for PR", especially since Israel has been on a fucking crusade to stop people from saying anything funny.
This is how international law has always worked. The fact that you can't always enforce it doesn't prevent making rulings. Domestic law will sometimes work the same way in some cases
Isn't it the same as issuing arrest warrants against Putin?
Not quite, because that warrant actually does prevent Putin from going to a lot of countries, and it has made the coward afraid of even going to countries which have openly stated that they won't enforce the warrant (like South Africa).