ICC issues arrest warrant against Israel’s Netanyahu, Gallant: What this means, what happens next?

For the first time in history, the international criminal court ICC has issued arrest warrant for Prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense minister Yoav Gallant. The action against them is for crime against humanity and war crimes for the recent conflict in Gaza. It has large consequences for international law, diplomatic processes, and the Middle East War constantly on-going.

The Charges

The arrest warrants arising from the International Criminal Court are based on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Benny Gallant, for engaging in the Gaza conflict from October 8, 2023, and May 20, 2024. They are being accused of starvations as weapon and the deliberate attack on medical units. ICC stated that there is a basis to assume that both leaders knowingly kept the civilian population in Gaza without necessities, namely food, water, medicine, and fuel. These actions, as the court states, amount to such serious violations of international humanitarian law.

The ICC's Jurisdiction

The ICC is based in The Hague, Netherlands, and founded under the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals for the gravest offenses, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Currently Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute signifying its acceptance of international criminal jurisdiction on the state however Palestine is a state party and thus the ICC can wield jurisdiction over Palestinians territories. After the referral, and from several countries including South Africa, Bangladesh and Mexico, the court has issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant showing the concern of the international community on the crises in Gaza.

International implications for Netanyahu and Gallant

Arrest warrants make Netanyahu and Gallant international wanted persons. This means ICC member countries are now obliged legally to apprehend them if they set foot on their territories. Israel and the US are not parties to the ICC and will not be bound by its rulings; however, these arrest warrants severely limit the travel and diplomatic appearances of the targeted leaders. In response, Netanyahu has labelled it "outrageous" and a "disgrace," while Gallant has not responded publicly.

What's Next?

The ICC's decision marks the start of a very complex legal and diplomatic process. Here are some of the key steps and potential outcomes:

• Arrest and Extradition: For example, if Netanyahu or Gallant visits any of the 124 countries that are signatories to the Rome Statute, they may be arrested and sent to The Hague to stand trial. However, the history of ICC warrants indicates that there have been no consistent follow-throughs in enforcing the warrants, leading some countries to ignore them on political grounds.
• Trial Procedure: In case the arrests take place, the ICC will start preparing the case for trial. Evidence collection, hearing of testimonies, and an in-depth scrutiny of allegations are the key processes during this stage. The trial may drag on for years before a final ruling is made.
• Diplomatic Fallout: The arrest warrants are likely to strain Israel's diplomatic relations with ICC member states. Countries that support the ICC's decision may face backlash from Israel, potentially affecting bilateral ties and international cooperation on various fronts.
• Impact on the Gaza Conflict: It could also spill over in transforming the trends within the Gaza conflict. The international community, increased scrutiny may compel both Israel and Hamas to reassess their strategy and opt for diplomatic solutions. The impact on the ground immediately still is not certain.

Broader Implications

The decision to issue arrest warrants against sitting and former leaders of a democratic country is unprecedented and therefore; it creates a new landmark of the international law. This supports the fact that the court will not leave any person of high political status while trying to bring to book people who have transgressed INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW and of grave consequences. This may encourage other international legal organizations and human rights organizations to follow the same their aim being to seek justice for those who have been affected through war crimes and crimes against humanity.

International Criminal Court (ICC)

The ICC remains the hope and advocacy forum of victims of human vices known to mankind. Established to prosecute persons responsible for genocide, crimes of war, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression, the ICC is an integral element of the international legal structure in enforcing accountability on the perpetrators while trying to deliver justice to the victims.

Historical Background

The ICC was founded by the signing of the Rome Statue on 17th of July 1998 and became operational on 1st of July, 2002. The formation of the ICC was a great achievement in international law representing international society’s determination to address the failure to prosecute the earth’s worst crimes. The headquarters is in The Hague, Netherlands and the court is not part of the United Nations nonetheless the relationship between them is synergistic.

Jurisdiction and Mandate

• Genocide: Pre-mediated action aimed at annihilating in full or in part a nation, an ethnic, racial or religious group. This includes taking lives of members of the group, maiming or physically/mentally assaulting such a group, and deliberately making the conditions under which the group is living aimed at physically annihilating the group.
• War Crimes: Gross breaches of the parties to the conflict obligation in international humanitarian law. This is evident through extra judicial killings through assassinations, bombings of innocent civilians, unfair treatment of detainees including prisoners of war, abduction of innocent persons, and wanton destruction of civilian as well as humanitarian property.
• Crimes Against Humanity: murder, rape, torture, enslavement, deportation or other inhumane act, persecution, infliction of serious bodily injury, extermination and enforced disappearance of persons when committed during the course of a attack directed against civilian population.
• Crime of Aggression: The formulation or development of a plan or policy for the launching of an armed attack, the actual launching of the attack, or the immediate physical act by which the attack is initiated.

The jurisdiction of the ICC is restricted to criminal acts that took place on the land of, or were committed by citizens from, the state parties to the Rome Statute.

Structure and Functioning

The ICC comprises four main organs:

• The Presidency: Acting as the Executive Committee and composed of the President and two Vice-Presidents, in office for a three years’ mandate elected by the judges. The Presidency also has executive responsibilities for the court and is responsible for the engagement of the ICC with state, or other actors in society.
• The Judicial Divisions: Composed of 18 judges, with Pre-Trial Chamber, Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber. This is the list of general functions of the judges which includes conducting proceedings of the case and guaranteeing fair trial.
• The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP): A separate body to investigate and prosecute affairs under the jurisdiction of the court or a part thereof. The Prosecutor is appointed by the Assembly of States Parties for term of nine years, and heads OTP.
• The Registry: Serves an administrative and an operational capacity to the court. It deals with financial issues of the Court, protection of witness and also overseeing security of detainees in the court.

Some of the cases and achievements and worth mentioning as follows

Since its formation the ICC has closed dealt with a number of high profile cases. Notable examples include:

• Thomas Lubanga Dyilo: The former Congolese warlord was the first person convicted by the ICC in 2012 for the war crime of enlisting and conscripting child soldiers.
• Omar al-Bashir: The former President of Sudan was charged by ICC arrest warrants in the year 2009 and 2010 on the grounds of genocide, war crimes as well as crimes against humanity in Darfur. While al-Bashir has not been arrested, the warrants were an important moment in the process to domestically and internationally criminalize heads of state.

Challenges and Criticisms

The ICC faces several challenges and criticisms:

• Jurisdictional Limitations: Key player countries such as the US, Russia, China and India are signatory to the Rome Statute and hence ICJs jurisdiction in relation to crimes perpetrated by its nationals or in its territories is restricted.
• Compliance and Enforcement: The ICC cannot embark on arrests or the implementation of the decisions it makes on its own, it has to rely on states assistance.
• Perceived Bias: Many skeptics claim that ICC is politically motivated and selective in the charges preferred against African leaders.

The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice an important legal institution UN. Founded in 1945 pursuant to the UN Charter, the ICJ is an essential part of the overall efforts in the provision of justice and preservation of world peace through the offering of judgements and explanations of controversies between states and providing advisory opinions where such controversies are presented before it by other organs of the United Nations including specialist agencies. The principle of forming the ICJ was a response of the San Francisco Conference, where the UN Charter was developed.

Composition and Structure

The ICJ is made up of fifteen judges who are appointed for a term of nine years each by an open vote of the General Assembly and by the Security Council. The judges have to belong to the leading legal systems of the world and all judges have to be from different countries. The composition of the court seeks to strike a balance because it has to represent all sections of the legal system in the world and different legal cultures. The President and Vice-President of the ICJ are chosen from amongst the judges through an election process that occurs every three years.

Jurisdiction and Functions

The ICJ has two primary functions:

• Contentious Cases: In the most difficult situations it provides for the resolution of disputes that have been submitted by the states. Cases cannot be brought by individual or NGOs, cases can be brought by states only. As for the jurisdiction of the court between contentious cases the jurisdiction is presumed by agreement of the parties engaged. In their consent, states may agree to the court jurisdiction in treaties or special agreement, or they may make statements purporting to make the court jurisdiction compulsory.
• Advisory Proceedings: The ICJ offers opinions on legal matters if asked by the UN General Assembly, the Security Council or any other UN organisation or institution, as well as global specialised agencies. Advisory opinions while not being legally enforceable are nonetheless accompanied by substantial legal and moral weight.

Contributions

The ICJ has been useful mainly in providing clear legal solutions to many contentious political questions and legal issues. Some of the notable cases include:

• The Corfu Channel Case (1949): This was the first contentious case presented to the ICJ, it was a case of the United Kingdom and the Albania concerning events occurring in the Corfu Channel. The judgment also made it clear over the issues of state sovereignty and non-interference policy.
• The Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996): This advisory opinion deals with the question regarding the permissibility in international law of the use of nuclear firearms. Though the court did not pronounce the permissibility of nuclear weapons in any circumstance, it enumerated the requirement of countries under IHL.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its significant contributions, the ICJ faces several challenges and criticisms:

• Jurisdictional Limitations: Consent jurisdiction is whereby states accept or agree to be bound by the ICJ’s jurisdiction hence states have a choice of accepting its jurisdiction or not. This may cause the court to not be able to address concerns especially when one of the parties is not willing to participate.
• Compliance with Judgments: There is usually disagreement when it comes to insisting on compliance with the judgments passed. ICJ’s decision however is authoritative; its enforcement however requires the cooperation of the states, the willingness to be bound by the decisions and support from the communities.
• Perceptions of Bias: Critics across states and observers have pointed that they appear biases on the court decisions especially on asegregate of different legal systems and cultures. This is very important bearing in mind that the court must act always in an impartial and fair manner.

Comparison between the ICC and the ICJ

The ICC and the ICJ are two different courts in the international legal framework that have different purposes, powers, responsibilities, and authorities. Here’s a concise overview of how these courts differ from each other: