The UK government’s intervention at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has delayed a decision on whether to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza. By allowing the UK to present legal arguments, the ICC has sparked concerns that Britain’s actions are politically motivated and could undermine previously settled jurisdictional issues. This move has raised questions about whether the UK is prioritizing diplomatic ties over justice and accountability for international crimes, leaving the case’s future uncertain and contentious.
The UK government’s involvement at the international criminal court is expected to postpone a decision on whether to issue an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for suspected war crimes in Gaza.
On Thursday, ICC judges determined that the UK will be allowed to present legal reasons in the case while deciding whether to approve requests for warrants against Netanyahu and his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, requested by the ICC’s head prosecutor.
According to court documents, after the prosecution filed the requests, the UK claimed that the judges overseeing the case needed to address “outstanding” doubts concerning the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli residents before deciding whether to issue the warrants.
Some international law experts are concerned that the decision to allow the UK to make arguments in the case is politically motivated and an attempt to revive legal concerns that have previously been resolved.
In February 2021, a panel of ICC justices announced a verdict establishing the ICC’s authority over occupied Palestinian territory. The judgment allowed the ICC’s former head prosecutor to launch a criminal probe into alleged atrocities in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
However, last month, the UK government informed an ICC pre-trial tribunal that the 2021 finding “did not determine” jurisdictional concerns connected to the Oslo Accords, the interim peace agreements negotiated between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel in the 1990s.
According to UK government lawyers, the judges must “make an initial determination” about whether the ICC can exercise jurisdiction against Israeli people “in circumstances where Palestine cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals pursuant to the Oslo accords”.
The UK’s views echo those voiced by current and past senior Israeli officials. One senior Israeli official claimed that “the jurisdictional issues are not resolved” since Palestine “does not have the power to delegate [jurisdiction] to the court.”
Experts suggested the decision to allow the UK to intervene on this point could cause delays in the arrest warrants case, but a former ICC official aware of the 2021 case said the jurisdictional difficulties had been overcome and, if challenged, would be “dead on arrival”.
According to Mark Kersten, an ICC expert, and criminal justice professor at the University of the Fraser Valley in Canada, “it would beggar belief” if the judges decided that Palestine, an ICC member state, “could not ask the court to address atrocities committed on its territories because of a moribund Oslo peace process”.
Danya Chaikel, the International Federation for Human Rights delegate to the ICC, described the UK’s attempt to dispute ICC jurisdiction under the Oslo agreements as “deeply troubling and unjust”.
She stated that the UK appeared to “prioritize diplomatic relationships over accountability for international crimes,” and that its attempt to challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction also failed “to address Israel’s noncompliance with the Oslo accords, particularly settlement expansions in the West Bank.”
In response to the ruling, Clive Baldwin, a senior legal consultant at Human Rights Watch, stated: “The UK should not be leading the charge for double standards in victims’ access to justice.” The next government will need to immediately decide if it supports the ICC’s essential role in bringing accountability and defending the rule of law for all.”
A representative for the Foreign Office explained: “The UK believes that the court has not yet engaged with the impact and effect of the Oslo accords on the jurisdiction in this case and we think they must do so at any early stage of proceedings.”
Recently, GreatGameIndia reported that Josep Borrell, the head of EU foreign policy, stated that EU members would have to arrest Netanyahu after the ICC warrant, as all EU countries, except Turkey and Ukraine, are bound by the Rome Statute.
