Advertisement

The 2009 Palestinian Ad hoc Declaration

  • Seada Hussein AdemEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Criminal Justice Series book series (ICJS, volume 21)

Abstract

In 2009, the Palestine Authority lodged an ad hoc declaration to the International Criminal Court accepting the jurisdiction of the Court for crimes committed since 2002. Almost three years later, the Office of the Prosecutor decided not to open an investigation on the situation in Palestine until the Assembly of States parties of the Court or the United Nations gives clarification on the statehood issue of Palestine. This chapter analyses the ad hoc declaration legal regime and the decision of the Office of the Prosecutor on Palestine’s declaration. It examines the route the Prosecutor employed in reaching the decision not to proceed followed by an alternative route that the author argues fits the provisions of the Rome Statute and the Practice of the United Nations. In addressing the statehood issue of Palestine, which the Prosecutor argued is a determining factor, the chapter discusses some key historical events that shed light on Palestine’s statehood, the elements of the Montevideo Convention and the theories of State recognition. The chapter also provides a functional approach or a practical route to deal with issues regarding ad hoc declarations in light of the aims and purposes of the Rome Statute.

Keywords

Ad hoc declaration Jurisdiction Kompetenz-Kompetenz Office of the Prosecutor Rome Statute Statehood of Palestine 

References

  1. Aksar Y (2004) Implementing international humanitarian law: From the ad hoc tribunals to a permanent International Criminal Court. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  2. Al Zoughbi (2013) The de jure State of Palestine under belligerent occupation: Application for admission to the United Nations. In: Qafisheh M (ed) Palestine membership in the United Nations: Legal and practical implications. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, New Castle, pp. 162–186.Google Scholar
  3. Ambos K (2016) Treaties on international criminal law: International criminal procedure, vol. 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Amerasinghe C (2003) Jurisdiction of international tribunals. Kluwer Law International, The Hague.Google Scholar
  5. Amnesty International (2012) Amnesty International’s response to the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’s statement that it cannot investigate crimes committed during the Gaza conflict. https://www.amnesty.ca/news/news-item/ai039s-response-to-icc-prosecutor039s-decision-not-to-investigate-crimes-during-gaza-. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  6. Ash R (2009) Is Palestine a ‘state’? A response to Professor John Quigley’s article ‘The Palestine declaration to the International Criminal Court: the statehood issue’. Rutgers Law Records 36:182–201.Google Scholar
  7. ASP (2009) Delegations to the second resumption of the seventh session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 9–13 February 2009, UN Doc. ICC-ASP/7/INF.1/Add.2.Google Scholar
  8. Azarova V (2013) Tell it to the judge: Palestine’s UN bid and the International Criminal Court. In: Qafisheh M (ed) Palestine membership in the United Nations: Legal and practical implications. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, New Castle, pp. 252–267.Google Scholar
  9. Bassiouni M, Wise E (1995) Aut dedere aut judicare: The duty to extradite or prosecute in international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Boas G (2007) The Milosevic trial: Lessons for the conduct of complex international criminal proceedings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Boyle F (1990) The creation of the state of Palestine. EJIL 1:301–306.Google Scholar
  12. Chazournes L (2011) The principle of compétence de la compétence in international adjudication and its role in an era of multiplication of courts and tribunals. In: Arsanjani M et al (eds) Looking to the future: Essays on international law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, pp. 1027–1064.Google Scholar
  13. Crawford J (1977) The criteria for statehood in international law. British Yearbook of International Law 48(1): 93–182.Google Scholar
  14. Crawford J (1990) The creation of the state of Palestine: Too much too soon? EJIL 1:307–313.Google Scholar
  15. El Zeidy M (2015) Ad hoc declarations of acceptance of jurisdiction: The Palestinian situation under scrutiny. In: Stahn C (ed) The law and practice of the International Criminal Court. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 179–209.Google Scholar
  16. Gaillard E, Savage J (eds) (1999) Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law, The Hague.Google Scholar
  17. Gasser H (1995) Protection of the civilian population. In: Fleck D (ed) The handbook of humanitarian law in armed conflicts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 209–292.Google Scholar
  18. Gowlland-Debbas V (2012) Note on the legal effects of Palestine’s declaration under Article 12(3) of the ICC Statute. In: Meloni C, Tognoni G (eds) Is There a Court for Gaza? A Test Bench for International Justice. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 513–524.Google Scholar
  19. Grant T (1999) Defining statehood: The Montevideo Convention and its discontents. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 37:403–457.Google Scholar
  20. Grover L (2014) Interpreting crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Guilfoyle D (2106) International criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Kaul H (2002) Preconditions for the exercise of jurisdiction. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 583–616.Google Scholar
  23. Kearney M (2012) Why statehood now: A reflection on the ICC’s impact on Palestine’s engagement with international law. In: Meloni C, Tognoni G (eds) Is There a Court for Gaza? A Test Bench for International Justice. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 391–407.Google Scholar
  24. Kearny R, Dalton R (1970) The treaty on treaties. American Journal of International Law 64:495–561.Google Scholar
  25. Kontorovich E (2013) Jurisdiction over Israeli settlement activity in the International Criminal Court. Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper 13–10.Google Scholar
  26. Linderfalk U (2011) The creation of jus cogens – Making sense of Article 53 of the Vienna Convention. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law 71:359–378.Google Scholar
  27. Materu S (2015) The post-election violence in Kenya: Domestic and international legal responses. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague.Google Scholar
  28. McGregor L (2006) State immunity jus cogens. ICLQ 55:437–446.Google Scholar
  29. Mendes E (2010) Statehood and Palestine for the purposes of Article 12(3) of the ICC Statute: A contrary perspective. https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/D3C77FA6-9DEE-45B1-ACC0-B41706BB41E5/281876/OTPErrolMendesNewSTATEHOODANDPALESTINEFORTHEPURPOS.pdf. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  30. OTP (2013) Policy paper on preliminary examinations.Google Scholar
  31. OTP (2014) Policy paper on preliminary examinations.Google Scholar
  32. OTP (2015) Policy paper on preliminary examinations.Google Scholar
  33. Palestinian National Authority (2009) Declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.Google Scholar
  34. Palestine National Council (1988) Political communique and declaration of independence.Google Scholar
  35. Pellet A (2012) The effects of Palestine’s recognition of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. In: Meloni C, Tognoni G (eds) Is There a Court for Gaza? A Test Bench for International Justice. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 409–428.Google Scholar
  36. Peters J (2010) The Gaza disengagement: Five years later. Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs 3:33–44.Google Scholar
  37. Quigley J (2002) Palestine: The issue of statehood. In: Silverburg S (ed) Palestine and international law: Essays on politics and economics. McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina, pp. 37–54.Google Scholar
  38. Quigley J (2012) The Palestine declaration to the International Criminal Court: The statehood issue. In: Meloni C, Tognoni G (eds) Is There a Court for Gaza? A Test Bench for International Justice. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 429–439.Google Scholar
  39. Quigley J (2016) Palestine is a state so the consent declaration is a valid basis for investigation by the ICC. In: Steinberg R (ed) Contemporary issues facing the International Criminal Court. Brill Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
  40. Raic D (2002) Statehood and the law of self-determination. Kluwer Law International, The Hague.Google Scholar
  41. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (2003) Declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/57B00915-8FDF-4532-9BDE-8AF338E3E364/279844/ICDEENG7.pdf. Accessed 13 February 2016.
  42. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (2010) Confirmation de la declaration de reconnaissance [confirmation of the declaration of jurisdiction]. https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/498E8FEB-7A72-4005-A209-C14BA374804F/0/ReconCPI.pdf. Accessed 13 February 2016.
  43. Schabas W (2010) The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  44. Schabas W (2011) An introduction to the International Criminal Court, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. Schabas W (2014) Selecting situations and cases. In: Stahn C (ed) The law and practice of the International Criminal Court. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 365–381.Google Scholar
  46. Shany Y (2012) In defence of functional interpretation of Article 12(3): A response to Yael Ronen. In: Meloni C, Tognoni G (eds) Is There a Court for Gaza? A Test Bench for International Justice. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 497–511.Google Scholar
  47. Shaw M (2011) The Article 12(3) Declaration of the Palestinian Authority, the International Criminal Court and International Law. JICJ 9:319–324.Google Scholar
  48. Smet S (2009) A structural analysis of the role of the Pre-Trial Chamber in the fact-finding process of the ICC. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 405–440.Google Scholar
  49. Stegmiller I (2011) The pre-investigation stage of the ICC: Criteria for situation selection. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.Google Scholar
  50. Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) (2016) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 3rd edn. Hart Publishing, Munich.Google Scholar
  51. Turk D (1993) Recognition of states: A comment. EJIL 4:66–74.Google Scholar
  52. UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (2002) Summary records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the committee of the whole, vol. 2. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
  53. UNGA (1947) Resolution 181 (II), UN Doc. A/RES/181(II).Google Scholar
  54. UNGA (1979) Resolution 34/70, UN Doc. A/RES/34/70.Google Scholar
  55. UNGA (1988) Resolution 43/177, UN Doc. A/RES/43/177.Google Scholar
  56. UNGA (2012) Resolution 67/19, UN Doc. A/RES/67/19.Google Scholar
  57. UNSC (1948) Official Records, 383rd Meeting, 2 December 1948, UN Doc. S/PV.383.Google Scholar
  58. UNSC (1967) Resolution 242, UN Doc. S/RES/242.Google Scholar
  59. UNSC (1973) Resolution 338, UN Doc. S/RES/338242.Google Scholar
  60. Vagias M (2014) The Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  61. Vidmar J (2013) Democratic statehood in international law: The emergence of new states in post-Cold War practice. Hart Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  62. Warbrick C (1996) Unrecognized states and liability for income tax. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 45:954–960.Google Scholar
  63. WHO (1989a) 42nd World Health Assembly, Geneva, 8–19 May 1989: Resolutions and decisions, annexes. WHO, Geneva.Google Scholar
  64. WHO (1989b) Request of Palestine for admission as a member of the World Health Organization, A 42/Conf. Paper No. l Rev. l, World Health Organization, 11 May 1989.Google Scholar
  65. Worster W (2010) The exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court over Palestine. American University International Law Review 26:1153–1209. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the author 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations