🔴In its Article 19(3) decision, the Chamber explicitly held that there is no basis for treating the State of Palestine differently from any other State Party. It did so in the following terms:
“By becoming a State Party, Palestine has agreed to subject itself to the terms of the Statute and, as such, all the provisions therein shall be applied to it in the same manner than to any other State Party. Based on the principle of the effectiveness, it would indeed be contradictory to allow an entity to accede to the Statute and become a State Party, but to limit the Statute’s inherent effects over it.”

🔴There is an additional problem with the contention of certain interveners that the Oslo Accords bar the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over international crimes committed on the territory of the State of Palestine by Israeli nationals. The argument is based on a misunderstanding of foundational concepts of jurisdiction under international law, including under the law of occupation. It also misunderstands how the drafters of the Statute specifically sought to accommodate certain bilateral and other arrangements.

Thus, for one intervener, the Oslo Accords “delegated a limited authority” to the Palestinian Authority. For another, it entailed but a limited transfer of powers to the Palestinian Authority by Israel. For another still, “[a]ll the powers and responsibilities, including the exercise of jurisdiction (prescriptive or enforcement), transferred to the PA were granted by Israel. In short, and in relation to the present matter, according to these interveners whatever jurisdictional entitlements are enjoyed by the State of Palestine today were in Israel’s gift.

In my opinion, this is a very brave and powerful submission. You won’t see it on MSM, but now his life might be at risk.

[RT]

💥🔽💥🔽💥An explosion in I'billin and Tamra, east of Haifa, coinciding with the sound of sirens.

[G&T]