The British government’s intervention at the International Criminal Court is expected to delay a decision on whether an arrest warrant can be issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on suspicion of war crimes in Gaza.
International Criminal Court judges ruled on Thursday to allow Britain to make legal arguments in the case as they consider whether to approve an application by the court’s chief prosecutor for arrest warrants against Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant.
According to court documents, after the prosecutor made the request, the UK argued that the judges hearing the case must address “unresolved” questions about the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals before deciding whether to issue a warrant.
The decision to allow the UK to present its arguments in the case has raised concerns among some international law experts that the UK’s intervention is politically motivated and an attempt to reopen a legal issue that many say has already been resolved.
In February 2021, a panel of ICC judges issued a ruling confirming the ICC’s jurisdiction in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, paving the way for the ICC’s former chief prosecutor to open a criminal investigation into alleged atrocities in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
But the British government told the ICC’s pre-trial chamber last month that the 2021 ruling “does not determine” the issue of jurisdiction over the Oslo Accords, the interim peace agreements signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel in the 1990s.
British government lawyers argued that the judges therefore had to “make an initial determination” as to whether the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over Israeli nationals “in circumstances where Palestine cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals under the Oslo Accords”.
The British argument echoes those of current and former Israeli officials interviewed by the Guardian in recent months, with one senior Israeli official arguing that “the issue of jurisdiction remains unresolved because Palestine has no mandate to devolve powers.” [jurisdiction] “To court.”
Experts said a decision to allow Britain to intervene in the issue could delay the arrest warrant case, but a former ICC official familiar with the 2021 proceedings said the jurisdiction issue had been resolved and would be “doomed from the start” if challenged.
Mark Karsten, an expert on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and professor of criminal justice at the University of the Fraser Valley in Canada, said it would be “incredible” if the judges decided that Palestine, a member state of the ICC, “cannot ask the court to address atrocities committed on its territory because the Oslo peace process is stalled.”
Daniya Chaiker, the International Federation for Human Rights’ representative to the ICC, said it was “deeply disturbing and unjust” that Britain was trying to use the Oslo Accords to challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction.
She said the UK appeared to “prioritize diplomatic relations over accountability for international crimes” and that attempts to challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction “have failed to address Israel’s non-compliance with the Oslo Accords, particularly regarding settlement expansion in the West Bank.”
Responding to the decision, Clive Baldwin, senior legal counsel at Human Rights Watch, said: “The UK should not be a leader in promoting double standards in victims’ access to justice. The next government needs to decide now whether it will support the ICC’s vital role in ensuring accountability and upholding the rule of law for all.”
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “The UK believes that the Court has not yet considered the impact and effect of the Oslo Accords on its jurisdiction in this case and believes it is essential that it does so at an early stage in the proceedings.”
