Territorial Jurisdiction over Palestine

Good news for the Palestinian people and international criminal justice. The International Criminal Court issues its decision on the public prosecutor’s request regarding territorial jurisdiction over Palestine.

A historic decision and a positive step towards achieving justice, and a meeting soon at the court to discuss the issue.

Adviser: Amin El-Deeb

The First Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court decided upon a majority decision stating that the court’s territorial jurisdiction in relation to the situation in Palestine, which is a state party to the Rome Statute, is jurisdiction that includes the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, especially Gaza and the West Bank, including That’s East Jerusalem.

On December 20, 2019, the court’s public prosecutor announced the end of the preliminary study of the case in Palestine. Where it concluded that all the charter conditions to open an investigation in accordance with the Rome Statute were fulfilled. The decision to initiate an investigation in this case remains with the public prosecutor of the court. On January 22, 2020, pursuant to Article 19 (3) of the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor requested the Chamber to issue a decision related only to the court’s territorial jurisdiction in the case in the State of Palestine.

In its ruling, Pre-Trial Chamber I recalled that the Court did not have the statutory capacity to adjudicate matters relating to the establishment of a State in a binding manner to the international community. And when the department has issued a ruling on the scope of its territorial jurisdiction, it does not adjudicate that in a dispute over borders under international law, nor does it preempt judgment about the fate of the borders. The decision of the circuit is intended only to determine the regional jurisdiction of the court.The First Pre-Trial Chamber examined the Prosecutor’s request, in addition to the submissions from other countries and organizations and researchers who participated as friendly parties to the court and as representative groups of victims. The Chamber considered that, according to the prevailing meaning of its terms in the context in which they are contained, and in light of the purpose and purposes of the Rome Statute, the reference to the State in whose territory the conduct in question occurred ” in Article 12 (2) (a) must be interpreted as a reference to A state party to the Rome Statute. The Chamber also concluded that Palestine’s accession, regardless of its status from the perspective of public international law, to the Rome Statute followed the correct and usual course, and that the Chamber had no authority to appeal or review the outcome of the accession process conducted by the Assembly of States Parties. Palestine has thus agreed to be subject to the provisions of the Rome Statute, and is entitled to be treated like any state party with regard to the application of the Statute.

Pre-Trial Chamber I also noted that the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 67/19, and as in the case of resolutions drafted in similar terms, “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence in their state of Palestine on the Palestinian land occupied since 1967”.

On this basis, the majority, consisting of Judge Reign Adelaide Sophie Albini-Ganseau and Judge Marc Perrin de Brishambeau, concluded that the court’s territorial jurisdiction in the case in Palestine includes the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, particularly Gaza and the West Bank, including Jerusalem. Eastern.In addition to the foregoing, the Chamber concluded by majority that the arguments related to the Oslo Accords and their clauses that limit Palestinian legal jurisdiction are not relevant to the determination of the issue of the court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine. These cases and other matters related to jurisdiction are subject to consideration if the public prosecutor submits a request to issue an arrest warrant or a summons to appear.

Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambeau attached an opinion issued separately from the decision in part on the reasons for which Article 19 (3) of the Statute applies to this case. Judge Peter Kovac, who is the presiding judge, issued an opinion partially contradicting the decision, in which it contradicts the fact that Palestine qualifies to be considered the state in whose territory the conduct in question occurred ” for the purposes of Article 12 (2) (a) of the Statute and that the jurisdiction of the court includes Almost automatically and without restrictions – the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, especially Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.