Bell on the embarrassment at the ICC

Professor Avi Bell points out the embarrassing treatment of Israel at the International Criminal Court, where due process, transparency, and moral legitimacy are nowhere to be found. Bell argues that Israel’s only reasonable response is to stop treating the ICC like a legitimate legal or juridical organization. Previously, Israel had determined to cooperate with the ICC in order to assure that its side of the story was told. But given the ICC’s absurd and open hostility to Israel, I am inclined to agree with Professor Bell’s assessment.

2 thoughts on “Bell on the embarrassment at the ICC”

  1. Very important issue of course. Although it is correct and legitimate of course, to attack it, yet, one can’t attack the very legitimacy of the ICC itself. This is senseless. One must understand the legal constructions and arguments, before attacking it, otherwise, it would turn against the attackers. For example:

    Bell argues, that the court or the prosecutor are heading towards recognition of the state of Palestine sovereignty over disputed area. This is really baseless. The prosecutor filed this submission, due to the lack of legal clarity of the issue. Moreover, the prosecutor, argues, that even if it is in noway a state, for any purpose, even so, I quote:

    Based on the above, and countless resolutions and pronouncements rendered by the international community over the years, the Prosecution considers that the Occupied Palestinian Territory is “the territory [where] the conduct in question occurred” within the terms of article 12(2)(a). Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in that territory. This determination is made strictly for the purposes of determining the Court’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction and the scope of such jurisdiction, and is without prejudice to any final settlement, including land-swaps, potentially to be agreed upon by Israel and Palestine.

    And:

    Moreover, the Statute makes clear that the Court’s determination of individual criminal responsibility has no bearing on the responsibility of States under international law. The Court is entitled however to rely, as a matter of fact, on the prevalent views of the international community with respect to the negative impact of certain State practices which have clearly and unequivocally been deemed contrary to international law.

    End of quotation:

    So, whether state in the plain meaning or not, doesn’t change in her view. She is aware to the fact or debate. That is why she asks for the opinion or approval of the court in fact.

    Or, Bell states that the court ” ruled that the prosecution needed to move ahead with another anti- Israel case (Marmara) But, that wasn’t’ the ruling, the ruling stated, that she needs to re- consider genuinely her decision, for the court, had no intention and jurisdiction even, to decide in her shoes, or impose such thing on her to decide even, but just to re- consider.

    This would undermine simply the Israeli cause, at least, in legal terms.

    Thanks

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s