Let the International Court of Justice Decide: It is Law, not History, that holds the Promise of Protecting Life in Gaza 

Posted on January 22, 2024 by Mark Kersten

The following article was written by Amanda Ghahremani and Mark Kersten and originally appeared in the Toronto Star. Amanda is an international lawyer, research fellow at the Human Rights Center, UC Berkeley, and at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University. Mark is the founder of Justice in Conflict, and an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of the Fraser Valley.

The Peace Palace, home to the International Court of Justice (Photo: Mark Kersten)

South Africa has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. The world is listening. As advocates of international law, we are profoundly disappointed by the recent discourse in Canadian media, which has distorted what is at stake here: not politics, nor history, but human life.

Last month, South Africa instituted proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over allegations that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. The ICJ is an impartial and independent international court that adjudicates disputes between states. Canada has often been involved in cases before the court. It is currently supporting The Gambia’s case against Myanmar for genocide against the Rohingya people and has brought Syria to the ICJ over alleged breaches of the Convention Against Torture.

Some critics have suggested that South Africa is disqualified from bringing a case to the ICJ in relation to Gaza, because its previous government refused to surrender former President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to face charges of genocide. This argument is nonsensical.

It is, of course, deplorable that South Africa refused to surrender al-Bashir to the ICC in 2015. But if there was a rule barring states that have failed to meet their obligations under international law from bringing cases to the ICJ, then no state would ever have standing before the court. We need look no further than Canada. This country has admitted that it has committed genocide against Indigenous peoples. Rightly, no one suggests that this disqualifies Canada from bringing Syria to the ICJ over state-sponsored torture. Similarly, should Israel be barred from participating in ICJ cases because it offered to sell Apartheid South Africa nuclear weapons? Of course not.

Critics have also implied that Israel’s claim of self-defense against the horrific October 7 attacks absolves it from committing genocide in Gaza. Again, this is wrong.

Continue reading →
Posted in Canada, Gaza, Genocide, International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Law, Israel, Palestine, South Africa | Tagged | 2 Comments

Genocide doesn’t “just happen” – Israel, Gaza and Genocide as a Process, not an Event

Posted on January 19, 2024 by Mark Kersten
“Law, not war”, a bench dedicated to the memory of former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, outside of the International Court of Justice in The Hague

Israel has now responded to South Africa’s allegations of genocide in Gaza. In its submissions at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel’s lawyers relied on a combination of legal and political arguments insisting that is not committing genocide.

This is not a post about whether or not the genocide threshold has been met or will be met. The ICJ’s judges are competent and capable of coming to their own conclusions on these allegations. Instead, this article responds to four issues regarding the alleged genocide in Gaza and Israel’s response at the ICJ.

Genocides don’t just happen

Genocide is a process, not an event.

States don’t commit atrocities by mistake. Genocide requires careful cultivation. The population in whose name a genocide is committed must be conditioned, desensitized, made to feel superior, as well as cognitively and physically distanced from the suffering of those singled out for genocidal violence. 

Genocide is likewise not a failure of institutions or politics, but the result of the successful capture of those institutions, the application of discriminatory laws, atrocity denialism, and the manipulation of public opinion combined with the dehumanization of the group targeted with extermination. It is not bloodthirsty monsters that commit genocide. Instead, as both Hannah Arendt and Zygmunt Bauman taught the world in relation the Holocaust, genocide is organized and orchestrated by bureaucrats.

Why does this matter? Because if Israeli authorities and the international courts had addressed widespread allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and apartheid committed against Palestinians, the very grounds of South Africa’s case against Israel would almost certainly not exist. 

To be sure, Hamas might still be the genocidal entity that it is, but it would almost certainly have little popular support, let alone power, if the basic rights of Palestinians had respected, protected, and promoted as opposed to systematically violated over decades. And again, the grounds that South Africa put forward in its application to the ICJ to claim that genocide has been taking place in Gaza would likely not exist.

Had the illegal blockade on Gaza not been imposed for the last seventeen years, Gazans might not be starving to death and have enough medical care to survive this war. If those Israeli officials who incite the ethnic cleansing and apartheid were in jail rather than normalizing ethnic cleansing on TV and in cabinet, there would be no grounds to suggest they incited genocide. If settlers were prohibited from stealing land in the West Bank and sanctioned or punished for doing so, it would be much harder to connect any risk of genocide in Gaza to the mistreatment of Palestinians in the West Bank. The theft of land, after all, is a central, motivating feature of all genocides.

Impunity defines this conflict. South Africa’s case is a symptom of the failure to meet the demands of justice. Had Palestinians and Israelis had the opportunity to plead their cases and seek and secure meaningful accountability, perhaps there’d be no reason for the ICJ proceedings.

The key point is the obligation to prevent genocide 

The full name of the Genocide Convention is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As International Law Professor Rob Howse writes: “the genocide convention is concerned above all with prevention, and thus should be applied long before a situation metastasizes into full-blown and possibly unstoppable annihilation.”

In 2007, the ICJ decided that all parties to the Convention are under the obligation to prevent genocide wherever there is a serious risk of it being committed, and that this obligation exists even in the absence of a legal determination that genocide has been committed. 

What constitutes a serious risk of genocide? The very same facts laid out above: systematic impunity for and denial of atrocities; the capturing of institutions and government bureaucracies by those who endorse collective punishment and ethnic cleansing; and the dispossession of resources, theft of land, and placation of those do both.

Continue reading →
Posted in Gaza, International Court of Justice, International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, Israel, Palestine, Palestine and the ICC, South Africa | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

“Let’s stop being fooled about Israel’s intentions in Gaza” – The Lasting Disaster of Ethnic Cleansing and the Risk of Complicity

Posted on January 9, 2024 by Mark Kersten

The following is a guest post by Thomas Obel Hansen and Felix Vacas Fernández. Felix is an Assistant Professor in Public International Law and International Relations at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain). Thomas is the Maria Zambrano 2023-24 Distinguished Researcher with the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain) and a Senior Lecturer in Law with Ulster University Law School/ Transitional Justice Institute (UK).

A woman sits among the rubble in Gaza (Photo: EPA)

Three months into Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, public debate remains mainly focused on the daily disaster that this campaign has brought with it. In a way, that’s understandable because of the large-scale and systematic targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure associated with a military campaign unparalleled in contemporary times both in intensity and level of disregard for international law. 

However, focusing primarily on the immediate violations and the suffering that comes with Israel’s actions runs the risk of distracting from lasting disaster of the potential ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in Gaza. In other words, the daily indiscriminate killing and pulverization of Gaza, as awful as it is, risks being the very means of achieving a more lasting objective consisting in ethnic cleansing, which in its own nature could amount to the crime against humanity of forcible transfer of the population, a crime set out in Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The general failure of many to ‘see’ this crime unfolding before our eyes and understanding its full implications arguably has to do with how Western governments and media have generally sought to portray Israel’s campaign as ‘a hunt for Hamas’, a type of anti-terror campaign all too familiar in Western capitals. As countries in the West are now strongly encouraging Israel to take a more measured approach, public attention in the West is mainly focused on the methods – not the broader aims – of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. When criticism has been levied by Western governments, it is on the manner in which Israel is conducting its military operations, not why it is doing so.

But one only needs to listen to what a litany of Israeli leaders say to understand that the overarching objective of the action taken is to fully destroy and empty Gaza of Palestinian citizens. What is being pursued involves the de-population of Gaza, and by extension an expansion of Israeli territory – or at least the areas under its control. 

Together with the ongoing expansion of settlements and the massive increase in settler violence in the West Bank, the ethnic cleansing ongoing in Gaza could amount to the completion of the Nakba involving the permanent displacement of the Palestine population out of Palestinian territories. If that happens, countries with the power to do so who failed to stop Israel would be liable, at least in moral and political terms and possibly also in legal terms through notions of complicity.

Continue reading →
Posted in Ethnic Cleansing, Guest Posts, Israel, Palestine, Palestine and the ICC | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Double standards on accountability must be called out and resisted, no matter who pushes them

Posted on December 4, 2023 by Mark Kersten
A Palestinian child walks past burned out cars in Hawara, West Bank (Photo: Reuters)

Victims and survivors of Hamas’ atrocities deserve justice. Victims and survivors of Israel’s atrocities deserve justice.

They deserve more than just rhetoric or pleas to stop the violence. They deserve accountability for the litany of well-documented crimes already committed.

These statements should not be controversial. But for some states and even some fair-weather international law and human rights advocates, any suggestion that alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel deserve independent and impartial investigation appears to be a bridge too far. 

Double standards must be resisted, no matter who or what claims them. International crimes do not warrant investigation because of where they perpetrated or who committed them. They warrant investigation because they were committed, because victims and survivors deserve accountability, and because siding with justice over impunity for mass atrocities is always – always – the right thing to do.

This is not about supporting one side or the other. Victims on both sides of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas want the ICC to investigate. Israeli families of the victims taken hostage by Hamas have requested an investigation by the Court over allegations that Hamas has committed genocide. Lawyers representing families in Gaza have also filed a request at the ICC asking it to investigate alleged genocidal acts by Israeli forces. On behalf of Palestinian groups and individuals, a widely respected human rights organization has launched a lawsuit against President Joe Biden for failing to act to prevent alleged genocide in Gaza.

Pressure on the ICC is growing. On 17 November, five states – South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, and Djibouti – officially referred the situation in Palestine to the ICC. It should be noted that the ICC Prosecutor already has jurisdiction in Palestine and opened an investigation into the situation there in 2021. As a result, the Prosecutor can investigate any alleged international crimes committed on Palestinian territory, including the West Bank and Gaza, and by any Palestinian factions, including Hamas, in Israel. Still, the referral of these five states indicates an expanding interest in supporting the Court’s work in the situation in Palestine, something that had not been nearly as apparent in recent years.

Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Currency of Diplomacy: A Speech Canada’s Commitment to International Law and Prosecuting International Crimes

Posted on November 30, 2023 by Mark Kersten

This week, I had the opportunity to speak before the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in Ottawa. I spoke Canada’s piecemeal commitment to international law and to the prosecution of international crimes. I appeared alongside Professor Jennifer Welsh and Professor Adam Chapnik. The full video of the speech and the questions and answer period can be found here.

My remarks focused on Canada’s refusal to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes and its troubling position on accountability for atrocity crimes committed in Israel and Palestine. In case the speech of interest to readers, I have published it below.

—————————–

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak to Canada’s commitment to a rules-based system in relation to the very currency of diplomacy: international law.

In particular, I will focus on Canada’s approach to prosecuting international crimes – war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression.

Canada has done a great deal to support accountability efforts in recent years.

Since 2022, Canada has consistently supported the prosecution of international crimes in Ukraine. With The Netherlands, Canada has taken Syria to the International Court of Justice over torture.

But many question why there are so many inconsistencies in Canada’s support for international law and accountability efforts.

I want to explore two questions I believe are instructive in relation to Canada’s position on prosecuting international crimes and Canada’s standing in the world.

First, what would Canada do if a mid-level Russian or Syrian war criminal, or a member of the Wagner Group entered Canada? 

As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, Canada is obligated to investigate war crimes and prosecute them in its own courts. Canada’s diplomatic partners would expect it to prosecute, and not become a safe haven for war criminals.

Yet all too often Canada does nothing or only attempts to deport the alleged war criminal instead of prosecuting them. And if Canada did deport that person, it would seek zero guarantees that they would be held accountable in the country they were deported to.

In 2016, the Department of Justice released a report that stated over 200 perpetrators of international crimes reside in Canada. It has not prosecuted any of them. Canada has the laws to do it, the resources to do it, but it won’t do it.Unlike its allies, since the early 2010s, Canada has abandoned the use of universal jurisdiction.

My second question is: what would Canada do if the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for senior Hamas leaders and those responsible for the atrocities committed on 7 October? There is a real prospect that this will happen in the coming weeks. What would Canada say to the Israeli families of hostages who have asked the ICC to investigate Hamas’ war crimes? What would it tell Palestinians victims and survivors?

Continue reading →
Posted in Canada, Corruption, Gaza, Hybrid Courts, Hybrid Tribunals, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, Israel, Palestine, Transnational Organized Crime | Leave a comment

Will justice ever be realized? Uncertainties for survivors of conflict-related gender-based violence as Liberia awaits the results of runoff presidential elections

Posted on November 16, 2023 by Guest Post Admin

The following is a guest-post by Kelsey Rhude and Yah Vallah Parwon. Kelsey is final year PhD candidate at the Irish Centre for Human Rights in the University of Galway, conducting research on transitional justice and peacebuilding in post-conflict Liberia. Yah is an African Feminist. She currently serves as the Country Director for medica Liberia with a longstanding career as a women’s human rights professional and attorney addressing issues related to social work, gender, conflict, and human rights. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the official position or stance of medica Liberia. This piece is a product of personal reflections and represents the authors’ individual perspectives on the issues of justice and accountability in Liberia. The authors assume full responsibility for the content, and the organization disclaims any liability or endorsement of the views presented herein. Furthermore, the authors do not express support for any political candidate, and this publication should not be construed as an endorsement of any political figure or party.

(Photo: EPA)

The year 2023 marks a crucial milestone in Liberia’s postwar journey towards justice and accountability. Firstly, it marks the 20-year anniversary since the end of the Liberian civil war. And secondly, Liberia is conducting its fourth post-war general and presidential elections this year.

With runoff elections having concluded on Tuesday between incumbent President George Weah and former Vice President Joseph Boakai, vexing questions on the country’s direction for justice remain at the forefront. Against the backdrop of lingering impunity, Liberia stands at a crossroads: in the absence of reparations for survivors of conflict-related violence, accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and consolidated efforts towards reconciliation, will justice ever be realized?

From 1989-2003, Liberia experienced a brutal period of armed conflict and instability, resulting in widespread violence against civilians and destruction of infrastructure. Gender-based violence (GBV) was especially pervasive throughout the Liberian armed conflict. The World Health Organization estimates that ‘between 61% and 77% of women and girls in Liberia were raped during the war’, in addition to reports of other forms of direct GBV, including sexual violence, sexual slavery, abductions, forced pregnancies, and forced terminations.

In 2003, warring factions signed the Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which ended armed conflict and set the parameters for Liberia’s transition from war to peace. The CPA led to the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission(TRC), mandated to determine the root causes of conflict, to establish a platform for truth and reconciliation, and to provide highly anticipated recommendations for justice and accountability.

After collecting statements from more than 20,000 Liberians, the TRC released its Consolidated Final Report in June 2009. Among its many recommendations, the Commission comprehensively addressed issues relating to GBV, despite its failure to provide a robust definition of GBV that goes beyond the perfunctory conflation of gender and women.  

The TRC report highlights experiences of both direct and indirect GBV perpetrated against women and girls, as well as men and boys (though the experiences of men and boys are only marginally captured). The Commission produced a dedicated appendix on‘Women and the Conflict’ where it addressed rooted gender inequalities, direct experiences of GBV, and issues relating to the economic, social and cultural impact of conflict on women in Liberia. These contributions are important because they broaden the criteria for what qualifies as GBV in armed conflict. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Liberia, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, Truth Commission, War crimes | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Lifeline for Gaza: Lifting the Blockade and Securing a Humanitarian Sea Corridor

Posted on November 10, 2023 by Mark Kersten
Since 2007, Israel has enforced a blockade on Gaza, which human rights groups have repeatedly found to breach international law (Photo: Gaza)

Food is running out. Surgeries and births are taking place without anaesthesia. Fuel shortages mean the only cancer hospital has closed. Without the basics needed to survive, the majority of Gazans are stuck while Israeli bombs fall and Hamas missiles are launched around them.

Tens of thousands of Gazan civilians have so far moved into Southern Gaza. But Israel bombs those areas too. Some civilians choose to stay home or in the hospitals where might still get some care. Some are unable to leave. Others surely think: Why leave if the bombs might fall on them no matter where they go?

Those under siege in Gaza cannot enter Israel, which refuses to allow them into the country. Egypt has only permitted a tiny number of mostly foreign nationals into the country through a border point that has also been bombed.

But take a look at the map. The Gaza Strip includes some 40km of coastline. Could it be a lifeline for aid to coming into Gaza and way for civilians to escape the continuous bombing by the Israeli Defence Forces? 

The answer is yes, but only if it is organized and implemented by a coalition of states and humanitarian agencies not directly involved in the war in Gaza.

As luck would have it, the government of Cyprus – the European country closest to Gaza – is currently negotiating with European and Arab states to create a “humanitarian sea corridor”. The idea, in a nutshell, is for ships carrying aid to sail from the Cypriot port of Limassol directly to the shores of Gaza. There, United Nations personnel would receive and distribute the aid to civilians, hospitals, clinics, and so on. 

If you are wondering how this plan not already in place, the answer is simple, if devastating: since 2007, Israel has enforced an air, sea, and land blockade on the Gaza Strip in an attempt to control everything and everyone that comes in and out of Gaza. On 9 October, the blockade was ‘upgraded’ into a “total blockade” and “complete siege” of Gaza. At the time, Israel’s Defence Minister Yoav Gallant notoriously announced: “No electricity, no food, no water, no gas – it’s all closed.”

Continue reading →
Posted in Cyprus, Gaza, ICC Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (ICC), Israel, Palestine, Palestine and the ICC | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Missing Pillar: Witness Protection and Transitional Justice in Africa

Posted on November 6, 2023 by Guest Post Admin

Emmanuel Ayoola joins JiC for this guest-post on the importance of witnesses protection n the field of transitional justice, and how to bolster its use in African contexts. Emmanuel is a human rights lawyer and a transitional justice practitioner. He was previously an Activism Officer with Amnesty International. He currently works with the Africa Transitional Justice Legacy Fund as a Grant and Programs Officer.

A witness testifies during proceedings at the International Criminal Court (Photo: ICC / CPI)

Witnesses are critical to justice-seeking mechanisms under transitional justice processes. What happens then if those witnesses are not protected? Needless to say, justice suffers. Justice continues to suffer in Africa as a result of weak or non-existent witness protection systems. To ensure justice for victims of conflict and mass atrocities, Africa must first safeguard the protection of witnesses. 

The development of transitional justice processes can be likened to the process of building a house – a house with several structural columns. Just like a house, transitional justice has pillars. The United Nations identifies the pillars as truth, justice, reparation, memorialization, and guarantees of non-recurrence. These pillars which are interrelated, work together for the sustainability of transitional justice processes. 

Just as a house cannot stand without pillars or other forms of structural support, in the same vein, it is impossible for transitional justice to thrive without all of its pillars; if one is absent or weak, the others are weakened as a result. However, for a long time, several attempts have been made to build transitional justice processes in Africa without all of its pillars. The results have been predictable – collapsing disappointments. 

Effective witness protection has often been a missing link. Truth and justice are key for transitional justice that cannot be built without robust witness protection systems. At the very core of truth-seeking processes and justice-seeking mechanisms lies the indispensable ingredient of witness testimony. The judicial mechanisms of transitional justice processes require witness testimony in the pursuit of justice. Witnesses provide evidence that will assist in holding perpetrators of human rights violations and atrocities accountable. In fact, survivors’ testimonies have been referred to as the backbone of transitional justice processes. It is essential and arguably indispensable even where other forms of evidence are available. Therefore where witnesses are not protected, they may be discouraged from giving evidence and thereby justice becomes far-fetched.

Continue reading →
Posted in Africa, Kenya, Transitional Justice, Witnesses | Tagged | Leave a comment

The War in Gaza: International Law is Nothing if it is not Applied

Posted on November 3, 2023 by Guest Post Admin

Chantal Meloni joins JiC for the blog post on the situation in Israel and Gaza and the need for international law to be applied. Chantal Meloni is International criminal law professor at the University of Milan and Senior legal advisor for international crimes accountability with the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights of Berlin (ECCHR). She also consults with the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and represents victims in the Situation Palestine before the International Criminal Court.

(Photo: BBC)

With the unprecedented attention dedicated to international criminal law over the Russian aggression in Ukraine, many activists, scholars and lawyers have concluded that international law is a living instrument. Its principles are still valid even at times of war and collapse of politics and diplomacy. In light of the unspeakable horrors committed by Hamas on 7 October and the ensuing response by Israel, international law’s mechanisms must be reactivated once again. Civilians are paying the price of atrocities while the basic principles of international humanitarian law – distinction, proportionality, and necessity – are being blatantly violated. 

International law is nothing if it is not applied. Courts must be able to address its violations. The international community has witnessed the support that both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) rightly received in the Ukraine situation from states not involved in the conflict there. Forty-three State Parties referred the situation to the ICC, and deployed funds and resources on an ad hoc basis to support the Court. The issuance of arrest warrants in relation to war crimes, including one for President Vladimir Putin, came relatively quickly.

Why is the same not happening with respect to the situation in Israel/Palestine? For those who follow the issue closely, the answer may not be surprising. But it is helpful to consider this question in detail in light of past and recent events.

As early as twenty years ago, several States opposed the very possibility of the ICJ delivering an advisory opinion regarding the consequences of Israel’s construction of a wall requested by the General Assembly. Some European governments declared that they “firmly believe[d] that the Court should refuse to answer the question posed by the General Assembly resolution of December 8, 2003, concerning the consequences arising from the construction of the wall by Israel, the Occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem and its surroundings.” 

Continue reading →
Posted in Gaza, Guest Posts, ICC Prosecutor, International Court of Justice, International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), International Humanitarian Law, International Law, Israel, Palestine, Palestine and the ICC | Tagged | 14 Comments

If not the ICC, then who? The need for an international investigation into atrocities in Israel and Palestine

Posted on October 26, 2023 by Mark Kersten

A version of this article was first published at Al Jazeera, here.

Damage seen following the explosion at the al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza (Photo: BBC)

The devastating explosion of al-Ahli Arab Hospital in central Gaza, in which the Palestinian Health Ministry says at least 500 people were killed, shows exactly why the International Criminal Court (ICC) must investigate atrocities committed in Israel and Palestine. With allegations levied from all directions, the ICC may just be the best option to provide an impartial and independent assessment of the bombing and, critically, who bears responsibility for it.

There is little doubt that the destruction of the al-Ahli Arab Hospital is a war crime, no matter who is ultimately responsible. Under the international law that governs conduct in armed conflict – International Humanitarian Law – civilians and medical professionals can never be targeted by military attacks, whether they are committed intentionally or recklessly – “when an attacker consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to civilians or civilian objects”.

Even if a warning is issued to those in a hospital or any other civilian infrastructure, patients and medics who cannot leave or who choose not to leave, still cannot be targeted. Warnings are not a magic wand that does away with the legal protections that civilians enjoy. No military advantage can be lawfully gained by bombing a hospital where civilians sought refuge, believing it was safe.

Someone is responsible. The question is who? Who is responsible for this massive loss of life, for this war crime? How are we supposed to know amid so many competing accounts and the misinformation that characterises this war?

In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, Gazan officials maintained that Israeli forces had bombed the hospital. There was some confusion as reports from sources close to Israeli authorities suggested that the Israeli military had bombed the hospital in an attack against Hamas, in an apparent admission that they had bombed it. Some observers may have been quick to assume Israeli forces were responsible because of past precedence, including reports from the World Health Organization that in the 2009 Gaza War, Israeli forces damaged more than half of the 27 hospitals and 44 medical clinics in Gaza. The Israeli military, however, denied any involvement and insisted that Islamic Jihad had misfired rockets and destroyed the hospital. Some states have backed Israel up Israel’s version, but many remain unconvinced.

Under the Geneva Conventions, Israel is required to investigate war crimes, including any committed by its own forces. Under international humanitarian law, states have an obligation to investigate and, where necessary, prosecute anyone who has committed a war crime. The problem is that states which are themselves implicated in hostilities and alleged atrocities are rarely able or willing to impartially investigate their own.

Continue reading →
Posted in ICC Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, Israel, Palestine | 6 Comments