This is an abstract of an article Eugene Kontorovich wrote of the ICC jurisdiction.
In the wake of the United Nations General Assembly’s recognition of Palestinian statehood, the Palestinian government has made clear its intention to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), where it could, in principle, challenge the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
This article explores a significant jurisdictional hurdle for such a case. (To focus on jurisdictional issues, the article assumes for the sake of argument the validity of the merits of legal claims against the settlements.)
The ICC can only consider situations ‘on the territory’ of Palestine. Yet the scope of that territory remains undefined. The norm against settlements arises in situations of occupation. However, in the majority view an ‘occupation’ can arise even in an area that is not the territory of any state.
In this respect, ICC jurisdiction is narrower than the corresponding Geneva Convention norm, as it only extends to sovereign state territory. Thus even if Israel is an occupying power throughout the West Bank for the purposes of substantive humanitarian law, this does not establish that settlement activity occurs ‘on the territory’ of Palestine. Moreover, both the General Assembly resolution and the International Court of Justice’s Wall Advisory opinion make clear that the borders of Palestine remain undefined. The ICC lacks the power to determine boundaries of states, and certainly of non-member states. Given that Israel is a non-member state, determining the borders of Palestine, even for jurisdictional purposes, would violate the Monetary Gold principle, as it would also determine Israel’s borders. Moreover, the Oslo Accords give Israel exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Israelis in the West Bank.
Palestine cannot delegate to the ICC territorial jurisdiction that it does not possess.
Even the broader, Geneva Convention norm would not apply, as it pertains to territory taken from the lawful possession of another “High Contracting Party” — that being another state signatory to FGC.
But the heartland provinces of Y/S were taken in defensive action from the Hashemite Kingdom across the River.
And even if the territories were unincorporated lands held purely as possessions (viz., not part of sovereign Jordan), they’d been seized by the Kingdom from the UN Temporary Trusteeship — and continued to be held by the Kingdom — UNLAWFULLY & in defiance of the Security Council.
The time to take up the question of occupation was between 1948 & 1967 — during the 19-year period that Jordan was sitting on the provinces
— assuming the real issue IS — or ever WAS — occupation.
We must act relentlessly, in a focused fashion to secure our rights.
SHmuel, you got that right.
The arab world out there is large enough to absorb the so called Palestinians.
Problem, the arab world has nothing to offer them in comparison what is available in the Jewish Nation of Israel.
They need to distance themselves from Hamas. Hamas (proxy of Iran) only uses them as an anti-Semitic tool. They cause their misery and blame the Israels. Wake up world, cease all aid to the Pals as it only ends up in the hands of Hamas.
There is no such state, palestine, there never was one.
There was and is Israel including recorded borders.
Weak leadership will only engender ill winds against us. We must select leaders dedicated to assure that our Land is claimed and populated at will by our people.
The inserted hordes from Arab lands must be displaced back to their origins.
Threats of war from gentile organizations.
I believe firmly that there never will be such attack unless of course if the hatred against our people overcomes the Goyim awareness that most of them would face total destruction if they try.
We must act relentlessly, in a focused fashion to secure our rights.