U.K. changed its stance on ICC arrest warrants

U.K. changed its stance on ICC arrest warrants

Subject: IR

Sec: Int org

Context:

Britain abandoned its intent to challenge the prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants before the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. The latest move signals a second policy shift by the Labour government, from the previous Conservative government, after it restored funding for the UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.

Dispute:

• The pre-trial chamber to serve arrest warrants against Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif (since killed).
• The move was consequent to the brutal fallout from Hamas’s Operation al-Aqsa flood and Israel’s Operation Iron Swords in retaliation.
• One pointed reference in Mr. Khan’s application was to Tel Aviv’s alleged intentional starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

What was the U.K.’s previous stance?

• The Conservative government opposed the ICC’s application for arrest warrants on Israeli leaders.
• K. lawyers maintained that the question of the Court’s jurisdiction over Israeli citizens had to be ascertained before arrest warrants could be served to Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant.
• The state of Palestine was not allowed to exercise criminal jurisdiction over Israeli citizens under the 1993 Oslo Accords, which has been superseded by the 1998 Rome Statute.

ICC jurisdiction issue:

• The ICC’s jurisdiction in Palestine since it was an occupied territory rather than a sovereign state.
• The Hague Court ruled that it could exercise criminal jurisdiction in occupied Palestinian territories, and that its reach extended to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
• The Court also made it categorical that its jurisdiction covered crimes committed by nationals of states-parties and by nationals of non-states-parties on the territory of a country.
• Thus, Israel’s refusal to ratify the Rome Statute is not directly relevant since the ICC prosecutes individuals and not countries, including citizens from states that are not signatories to the treaty.

Implications for Israel from U.K.’s current stance:

• Removal of Britain’s objections to the prosecutor’s actions, it may be a matter of time before the ICC issues arrest warrants against the five leaders.
• In that event, Prime Minister Netanyahu would earn the dubious distinction of becoming the first head of government backed by western countries to be indicted by the ICC.
• Such a scenario would expose Israel’s allies, especially the U.S., to immense domestic opposition against the supply of arms to that country.
• Tel Aviv already faces charges of genocide in the International Court of Justice.
• Conversely, the Hague Court, already under attack for its narrow focus on investigating impunities among African countries, faces the risk of undermining its relevance should the judges decide not to proceed against Israel.

International Criminal Court:

• It is the world’s first permanent international criminal court governed by an international treaty called ‘The Rome Statute’.
• In 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted by 120 States.
• In 2002, Rome Statute took effect upon ratification by 60 states, officially establishing the ICC. Since it has no retroactive jurisdiction, the ICC deals with crimes committed on or after this date.
• India is not a party to the Rome Statute along with the US and China.
• 124 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court with Malaysia being the last one.

Jurisdiction and Working:

• It investigates and, wherever warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. Also:
• The crimes are committed by a State Party national, in the territory of a State party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the court.
• The crimes are referred to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
• The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems.
• It prosecutes cases only when States are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
• ICC is not a UN organisation but it has a cooperation agreement with the UN.
• When a situation is not within the Court’s jurisdiction, the UNSC can refer the situation to the International Criminal Court granting it jurisdiction.
• Several countries like Israel, the US, Russia and China don’t accept the court’s jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and other crimes.

War Crime:

• Serious violations of humanitarian laws during a conflict; the taking of hostages, willful killings, torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners of war, and forcing children to fight are some of the more obvious examples.
• Individuals can be held liable for the actions of a state or its military.

War Crime vs Crime Against Humanity:

• The United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect (or Genocide Convention) separates war crimes from genocide and crimes against humanity.
• War crimes are defined as occurring in a domestic conflict or a war between two states.
• While genocide and crimes against humanity can happen in peacetime or during the unilateral aggression of a military towards a group of unarmed people.

Geneva Conventions on War Crime:

• The Geneva Conventions (1949)and their Protocols are international treaties that contain the most important rules limiting the barbarity of war.
• They protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).
• The first Geneva Convention protects wounded and sick soldiers on land during war.
• The second Geneva Convention protects wounded, sick and shipwrecked military personnel at sea during war.
• The third Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war.
• The fourth Geneva Convention affords protection to civilians, including in occupied territory.
• India is a party to all the four Geneva Conventions.