Al-Haq publishes detailed review paper: “Arguments Raised in Amici Curiae Submissions in the Situation in the State of Palestine before the International Criminal Court: Arrest Warrant Applications August 2024”
Today, Al-Haq launches an in-depth review paper on “Arguments Raised in Amici Curiae Submissions in the Situation in the State of Palestine before the International Criminal Court: Arrest Warrant Applications August 2024”, on the occasion of the 23rd session of the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court.
On 21 November 2024, the Pre-Trial-Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC), in a historic decision, issued warrants for the arrest of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant, finding that there was a reasonable basis to believe that both individuals were co-perpetrators with others in committing the war crime of “starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.
Six months previously, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) at the International Criminal Court had announced, on 20 May 2024, an application for Arrest Warrants on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister for Defence Yoav Gallant - proceedings which were unexpectedly, and unnecessarily, delayed by the authorisation on 27 June 2024, by the Pre-Trial Chamber, of a Request from the United Kingdom (UK) that it be permitted to submit written observations to the Chamber.
The Chamber subsequently authorised and received some 75 submissions from states, civil society organisations, international organisations, and others. This review paper identifies and discusses key themes and contributions made in these submissions.
Following the issuance of Arrest Warrants in the Situation in the State of Palestine, the declaration from several states parties to the ICC that they would not enforce the orders of the Court and execute the arrest warrants has underlined the precarious position that the Court occupies in the international system.
It is therefore necessary to understand and critique the legal rationales presented by states in their positions related to Palestine. States must be held to a consistent position in their analysis and interpretation of international law states can be challenged if, and when, they attempt to pivot from previously stated positions in order to create a Palestine exception to the rule of law.
In essence, the impetus behind the UK’s Request, as endorsed by those state parties to the Rome Statute intervening to support continued Israeli impunity, is the view that Palestine, and Palestinians, are not entitled to the human rights protections guaranteed to all other states and peoples which are members of the International Criminal Court
The present review aims to provide a useful reference point, given many of the issues addressed in submissions made, including by member states of the Court, are more than likely to be litigated again as proceedings in the Situation in the State of Palestine are progressed.
Please find the review paper attached in a one-page view here, and in a two-page view here.
