Is There a Court for Gaza?

Chantal Meloni • Gianni TognoniEditors

Is There a Court for Gaza?

A Test Bench for International Justice

123

Chantal MeloniCriminal Law DepartmentCesare BeccariaLaw FacultyUniversity of MilanVia Festa del Perdono 720122 MilanItaly

Gianni TognoniInternational SectionLelio Basso FoundationVia Della Dogana Vecchia 500186 RomaItaly

ISBN 978-90-6704-819-4 e-ISBN 978-90-6704-820-0DOI 10.1007/978-90-6704-820-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011943565

� T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors/editors 2012

Published by T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands www.asserpress.nlProduced and distributed for T.M.C. ASSER PRESS by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or byany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without writtenpermission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purposeof being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does notimply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevantprotective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Foreword

Palestine first surfaced as a subject of international litigation in the second con-tentious case before the Permanent Court of International Justice. The matterconcerned certain legal consequences of the British mandate and was not unrelatedto London’s encouragement of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine,although the precise dispute is far from issues of contemporary concern.1 Indeed,for about eighty years subsequent to the Permanent Court’s decision, in 1924, thePalestine issue remained far from the docket of international courts and tribunals.Only very recently there has been any serious prospect of the Israeli occupationand its consequences being addressed through the mechanisms of internationaljustice and international courts. To some extent this is because the institutionsthemselves did not previously exist or were not available. But it is also the result ofan increasingly robust use of international law as a means to deal with interna-tional disputes.

Some have dismissed this as ‘lawfare’. Recently, the term has been used toattack the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Wall andthe Report of the Fact-Finding Mission presided over by Richard Goldstone.‘Lawfare’ was apparently coined by General Charles Dunlap, an American mili-tary lawyer, in a lecture at Harvard University in November 2001. He said it was apractice whereby ‘the rule of law is … hijacked into just another way of fighting(lawfare), to the detriment of humanitarian values as well as the law itself’. Dunlapsaid ‘the use of law as a weapon of war, is the newest feature of twentyfirst centurycombat’.2

Were not the British, French and Russians using ‘lawfare’ in 1915 when theysaid that Ottoman leaders would be prosecuted for ‘new crimes of Turkey againsthumanity and civilization’, what we call today the Armenian genocide? What of

1 Mavrommatis Palestine Concession (Greece v. United Kingdom), P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, 30August 1924.2 Charles J Dunlap, ‘Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21stConflicts’, Humanitarian Challenges in Military Intervention Conference, Carr Center for HumanRights Policy, Harvard University, 29 November 2001.

v

the Americans, the British and the Soviets who, in October 1943, spoke of ‘evi-dence of atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded mass executions which are beingperpetrated by Hitlerite forces in many of the countries they have overrun andfrom which they are now being steadily expelled’? The Allies said they would‘pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth and will deliver them to theiraccusers in order that justice may be done’. The Nazis were doing the same,accusing their adversaries of war crimes in the fire-bombing of cities, for example.

The ‘lawfare’ libel is nothing more than frustrated resistance to the availabilityof new mechanisms and institutions whereby international law can be applied topresent conflicts, including those involving Israel and Palestine. For decades,international law was a largely theoretical proposition, something invoked byacademics and activists, and in debates within political bodies of the UnitedNations. Now, there is a realistic prospect that the great conflicts of our time canactually be brought to court.

This volume asks: ‘Is There a Court for Gaza?’ The answer is a resounding yes.Indeed, there are at least two courts capable of addressing the armed conflict inGaza that took place in December 2008 and January 2009: the International Courtof Justice and the International Criminal Court. But neither of them has juris-diction prima facie. The challenge, then, is to resolve the difficulties in establishingjurisdiction. Once this is done, the merits, which have only partially beenaddressed in the Goldstone report, can be litigated. Even then, there are limits tothe subject-matter jurisdiction that are likely to confine the judicial debate.

The International Court of Justice is the more challenging of the two. Israelcould consent to jurisdiction of the Court, in accordance with Article 36 of theStatute. But it is not likely to do so. Even if it did, it would be necessary to identifya dispute with another State, and one that was prepared to submit an application tothe Court. The Advisory Opinion procedure is also available, as the 2004 rulingshows. But considerable creativity would be required to develop a questionimmune to the complaint that it amounts to blatant misuse and a disguised attemptto litigate a contentious matter. Although the Goldstone Commission Report citedthe 2004 Advisory Opinion in several places, it did not even contemplate thepossibility that the violations of international law it had identified be addressed inthat forum.

A far more promising prospect is the International Criminal Court. It was theforum seriously considered by the Goldstone Report. As a general principle, theInternational Criminal Court may exercise jurisdiction over virtually any violationof its Statute committed anywhere in the world. This is a direct consequence ofArticle 12(3) of the Rome Statute by which any State may make a declarationaccepting the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court, regardless of whether it hasratified or acceded to the Statute. The only significant restrictions on this resultfrom other jurisdictional provisions: the alleged crime must fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court and the act must have been perpetrated subsequentto the entry into force of the Statute, on 1 July 2002. Neither of these criteria posesa problem with respect to the recent Gaza conflict.

vi Foreword

Several years ago, in An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, Isuggested that the Palestinian Authority might make a declaration to the effect thatwhen Palestine becomes a state, it pledged to give the Court jurisdiction overcrimes committed on its territory in the past by means of a declaration in accor-dance with Article 12(3). I did not then think seriously about the argument that it isalready a state for the purposes of Article 12(3), although I now acknowledge thestrength of the arguments to that effect. At the time, there were already two casesin which the provision had been relied upon, but they concerned Member States ofthe United Nations, Côte d’Ivoire and Uganda, whose claim to be ‘a State’ withinthe meaning of Article 12(3) could not reasonably be in dispute. My thesis thenwas that such a measure by the Palestinian Authority would at the very least sounda warning, and that this might generate a deterrent effect. Perhaps the proposal wassuperfluous. International lawyers working for Israel have analyzed the details ofthe Rome Statute and already appreciated the possibility that everything carriedout on Palestinian territory since 1 July 2002 is potentially subject to the Court’sjurisdiction.

By the time this book is published, Palestine’s existence as a State may beestablished beyond dispute. This important development may eliminate a signifi-cant portion of the debate with which the contributions in this volume are con-cerned. Then our attention will be focused principally on the substantive chargesrather than on the jurisdictional issues. That a State may give jurisdiction retro-actively pursuant to Article 12(3) is unquestionable, as the Côte d’Ivoire andUganda declarations demonstrate. After all, retroactive application is precisely thepurpose of the provision. Israel may nevertheless argue that a state of Palestinecannot employ Article 12(3) to give jurisdiction over its territory for a period in thepast when it may not have been a state. There is no convenient precedent toprovide an answer to this argument. However, the consequence of such a claimleads to an absurdity, or at least to a proposition that defies the object and purposeof the Rome Statute. It would mean that one portion of the globe, due to the factthat it was occupied illegally by a foreign power, would become more or lesspermanently insulated from the International Criminal Court. The judges of theCourt are exceedingly unlikely to accept such an interpretation.

The Fact-Finding Mission chaired by Richard Goldstone documented a largenumber of violations of international humanitarian law and international humanrights law. There has been much noise about a subsequent statement of RichardGoldstone expressing hesitation with respect to some of the conclusions. Theextent of his remarks has often been exaggerated, as they only dealt with one set ofthe alleged violations concerning intentional targeting of civilians during combatoperations. Judge Goldstone said that he doubted whether the evidence showedthis had taken place as a matter of policy. Careful reading of the Report indicatesthat the Fact-Finding Mission never made such a claim in any case. That individualsoldiers may have targeted civilians is a separate question from whether they didso as a matter of policy. It can only adequately be addressed with detailed analysisof specific incidents, and it is virtually impossible to reach an accurate conclusion

Foreword vii

on such matters without hearing both sides. In any case, the issue of intentionalattacks on civilians does not get to the heart of the matter. The core of theGoldstone Report dealt with the planned destruction of the entire infrastructure ofa community, aimed at punishing Palestinians in Gaza for their support of Hamas.That this was Israeli policy seems to have been admitted. It was a strategy that hadalready been used in Lebanon in 2006. No member of the Fact-Finding Missionhas repudiated the conclusions on this important point.

The Fact-Finding Mission found that war crimes may have been perpetrated byboth sides in the conflict. This is a source of satisfaction to many in the humanrights movement, who cherish the neutrality of such a perspective. Others,including Richard Falk in this volume, contend that the critique of Hamas intro-duces a distortion into the analysis. And from the other side, supporters of Israelclaim that essentially all of the acts perpetrated by the Israeli Defence Forces werea legitimate response to the Hamas rockets. These quarrels bring us to the heart ofthe real challenge in finding a court for Gaza. If the International Criminal Courtwere to proceed on the basis of the referral by the Palestinian Authority, whomwould the Prosecutor target? What crimes would be addressed? Would he dealwith Hamas and the Israeli Defence Forces equally, or with only one to theexclusion of the other? If he were to pursue both sides, what would be the pro-portions of such prosecutorial alchemy?

The question of even-handed prosecution has dogged international criminaljustice since its beginnings, when the victors of the First World War included pun-ishment provisions in the Treaty of Versailles. The great trials at Nuremberg andTokyo have been constantly criticized because they only dealt with violations on oneside of the conflict. The more recent ad hoc tribunals are purportedly more balancedin that they are established not by the victors but by the United Nations SecurityCouncil. The prosecutors of the ad hoc tribunals are not appointed by one side in theconflict, as was the case at Nuremberg and Tokyo, and the jurisdictional frameworkmakes prosecution of all parties a possibility. However, the Yugoslavia, Rwanda andSierra Leone tribunals have all required decisions to be made about the selection ofdefendants. In each, there has been controversy, demonstrating that the allegedshortcomings of Nuremberg and Tokyo have not been solved.

Nor has the International Criminal Court yet to provide the answer. To date, theProsecutor has selected situations for prosecution that are confined to a group ofcontiguous states in Africa. He has achieved this by either exercising his propriomotu power to choose situations, pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute, or byhis concurrence with such decisions when they are initially made by either theSecurity Council or a State Party (in accordance with Articles 13(b) and 14,respectively). The Prosecutor has located the activity of the Court within thecomfort zone of the United States and other prominent ‘western’ powers. This isnot ‘victors’ justice’ in the institutional sense, as was the case at Nuremberg andTokyo, but the result is about the same.

Ultimately, if prosecutions concerning Gaza are to proceed, the Prosecutor willhave to agree. A declaration under Article 12(3) does not trigger jurisdiction.

viii Foreword

An additional step is required. This can come from the Security Council(improbable), a State Party or the Prosecutor himself. But in all cases, the Pros-ecutor must concur both with the decision to investigate and with the choice of theaccused. To the extent that there is any anxiety about operating close to an exposednerve of the United States, a positive decision by the Prosecutor would seemunlikely, no matter how solid the legal arguments for jurisdiction may be. Thebiggest hurdle is not convincing the Prosecutor that he may exercise jurisdictionbut rather convincing him that he should. Moreover, even if he were to proceed,his choice of individual targets for prosecution may generate a narrative of theconflict with which many will disagree.

At present, the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court isconfined to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Fact-FindingMission quite correctly ignored the occasional demagogic invocation of the‘g-word’ and focused its attention on crimes against humanity and war crimes. Inthe context of international humanitarian law, these might be categorized as the jusin bello. They concern the conduct of hostilities rather than their legality. This isperhaps one of the great conundrums of bringing law to bear on the Gaza conflict.The general public does not properly understand the distinction between jus inbello and jus ad bellum. Many undoubtedly believe that there should be prose-cutions with respect to the Gaza conflict because Israel is responsible for theoccupation, for the blockade and for the initiation of the recent conflict. These arematters that cannot at present be addressed directly in proceedings before theInternational Criminal Court.

The famous statement signed by the late Ian Brownlie and several otherprominent academics, including a member of the Fact-Finding Mission, publishedin The Sunday Times in January 2009, criticized Israel not only for the conduct ofhostilities but also for waging the war in the first place. A focus solely on thebattlefield as such leads us toward the more balanced position whereby both sidesbear responsibility for violations. It implies that the root cause of the conflict as asecondary matter, and is premised on the apparent neutrality of the jus in belloperspective. We search for solutions that involve punishment of individual soldiersrather than turning to the only real answer, which is full affirmation of the right ofthe Palestinian people to self-determination.

Palestine’s entitlement to a sovereign state within fair borders reflecting itshistoric territory is an agenda that international litigation may help to advance, butprobably not one for which the International Criminal Court is particularly suited.In 2017, the Court may be able to exercise jurisdiction over the crime ofaggression. But this will not be possible retroactively, even if the new provisionswere to be applicable to an armed attack like the one made by Israel in 2008.

In the past, theorizing about using international law in order to resolve theconflict in the Middle East was an interesting exercise but one whose significancewas essentially hortatory. There was no court capable of providing a forum for thedebate. That no longer is the case. Over the past decade, both the InternationalCourt of Justice and the International Criminal Court have been confronted with

Foreword ix

aspects of the crisis. Neither institution provides an adequate remedy. But norshould the contributions that both can make to the debate be gainsaid. The legalarguments are inexorably intertwined with advocacy strategies, which they nour-ish, assist and orient.

William SchabasProfessor of International Law

Middlesex UniversityUK

x Foreword

Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the help and support of theInternational Section of the Lelio Basso Foundation in Rome.

The editors wish to thank in particular the Collective of Women of the town ofLecco, Italy, who assured the financial support for the project, as expression oftheir long term commitment for the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal and morebroadly for the peoples’ right to self-determination.

August 2011 Chantal MeloniGianni Tognoni

xi

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Chantal Meloni and Gianni Tognoni1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Chronology of Events Related to the UN Fact Finding Mission

on the Gaza Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.3 Map of Gaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Part I International Conference ‘Is There a Court forGaza?’ 22 May 2009, Rome

2 Selected Materials from the International Conference‘Is There a Court for Gaza?’ 22 May 2009, Lelio BassoInternational Foundation, Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Chantal Meloni and Gianni Tognoni2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.2 Selected Conference’s Papers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.2.1 Raji Sourani. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.2.2 Eric David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.2.3 Giuseppe Palmisano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302.2.4 Gabriele Della Morte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.2.5 Chantal Meloni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.2.6 Flavia Lattanzi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482.2.7 François Rigaux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2.3 Presentation of the Complaint Filed Before the InternationalCriminal Court by Gilles Devers and Mireille FanonMendes-France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.3.2 Violations of International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

xiii

2.3.3 Violations of International Humanitarian Lawand Human Rights Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2.3.4 The Commission of War Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692.3.5 The Commission of Crimes Against Humanity. . . . . . 702.3.6 Consequences in Terms of the Individual Criminal

Liability of Israeli Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712.3.7 The Consequences of the Violations of International

Law by the State of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722.3.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

2.4 States that have Recognised Palestine as a State. . . . . . . . . . . 76References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Part II The UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict andFollow-up at the International and Domestic Level

3 The Goldstone Report and the Goldstone Retreat: Truths Toldby Law and Reviled by Geopolitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Richard Falk3.1 A Preliminary Observation on the Goldstone Retreat . . . . . . . 833.2 Assessing the Goldstone Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873.3 Why the Goldstone Report Broke the Sound Barrier. . . . . . . . 883.4 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Goldstone

Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933.5 A Polarized Debate: Liberal Legality and

Geopolitical Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963.6 International Law and the Peace Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

4 The Follow up to the Goldstone Report and its Legal Impactin Israel and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Sharon Weill4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054.2 The Recommendations of the FFM Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074.3 The Monitoring of Israeli Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

4.3.1 United Nations Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084.3.2 Israeli Monitoring: The Turkel Commission . . . . . . . 110

4.4 The Israeli System of Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114.4.1 Structural Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114.4.2 Policy Deficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

4.5 Domestic Investigations and Prosecutions Conductedin the Aftermath of Cast Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

4.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

xiv Contents

4.7 Annex: Cases Prosecuted by Israel in the Aftermathof Cast Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

5 Initial Reactions to the Goldstone Report and Reflectionson Israeli Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Jennifer Barnette5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1245.2 Initial Reactions to the Goldstone Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Not So Easy to Sweep Under the Rug. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1305.3 The Legitimacy War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

H.Res.867 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135Attacking Goldstone … and his report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

5.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

6 Investigating the Investigations: A Comment on the UNCommittee of Experts Monitoring of the ‘Goldstone Process’. . . . 145Daragh Murray6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1456.2 Background: The Creation of the Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

6.2.1 Mandate and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1476.2.2 The Committee’s Principal Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

6.3 The International Regulation of Domestic War CrimesInvestigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

6.4 The Committee’s Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1526.4.1 Israel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1526.4.2 The Palestinian Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

6.5 Concluding Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

7 The Importance of Fact-Finding Missions UnderInternational Humanitarian Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Liesbeth Zegveld7.1 Inability of IHL to Protect Civilians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1617.2 Importance of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1627.3 Goldstone Report and Fact Finding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1637.4 Evidence Gathering in International Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1647.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Contents xv

Documents Attached to Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169[1] UN Human Rights Council Resolution S-9/1

of 12 January 2009, establishing the Fact Finding Missionon the Gaza Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

[2] Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on theGaza Conflict (the ‘Goldstone Report’): ExecutiveSummary, 23 September 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

[3] Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission onthe Gaza Conflict: Conclusions and Recommendations,24 September 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

[4] UN Human Rights Council Resolution S-12/1of 16 October 2009, endorsing the Goldstone Report. . . . . . . . . 227

[5] UN General Assembly Resolution 64/10 of 5 November 2009and Official Records with individual States’ votes . . . . . . . . . . 233

[6] Follow-up to the Report of the United Nations Fact FindingMission on the Gaza Conflict: Report of the UN SecretaryGeneral, Ban Ki Moon, of 4 February 2010, with annexedIsraeli and Palestinian Reports on internal investigations . . . . . . 251

[7] UN General Assembly Resolution 64/254of 26 February 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

[8] UN Human Rights Council Resolution 13/9 of 25 March 2010,establishing a Committee of independent Experts . . . . . . . . . . . 325

[9] First Report of the Committee of Experts, Pres.Tomuschat, of 23 September 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

[10] Second Report of the Committee of Experts, Pres.McGowan Davis, of 18 March 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

[11] UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/32of 25 March 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

Part III Gaza and the International Criminal Court: The LegalDebate on the Admissibility of the Palestinian DeclarationPursuant to Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute

8 Why Statehood Now: A Reflection on the ICC’s Impacton Palestine’s Engagement with International Law . . . . . . . . . . . 391Michael G. Kearney8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3918.2 De-Politicisation and Human Rights Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . 3938.3 From the Partition Resolution to the ICC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

8.3.1 The 1988 Declaration of Independence andEngagement with International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398

8.3.2 The Palestinian Declaration to the ICC . . . . . . . . . . . 4018.4 The Fact-Finding Mission Report and the Pressures on the

PA to Defer the Vote at the UN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

xvi Contents

8.5 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

9 The Effects of Palestine’s Recognition of the InternationalCriminal Court’s Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409Allain Pellet9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4099.2 The Relevance of a Functional Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4119.3 The Validity of the Palestinian Declaration of

21 January 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4159.4 Postscript. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

10 The Palestine Declaration to the International CriminalCourt: The Statehood Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429John Quigley10.1 Prior Episodes that Raised the Issue of Palestine Statehood . . . 43110.2 Palestine’s Declaration of Statehood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43210.3 Possible Claimants to Palestine Territory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43410.4 Entitlement to Self-Determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43510.5 Reaction of States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43510.6 A Continuing Statehood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43610.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

11 Is Palestine a ‘‘State’’? A Response to Professor John Quigley’sArticle, ‘‘The Palestine Declaration to the International CriminalCourt: The Statehood Issue’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441Robert Weston Ash11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44111.2 That Palestinian Officials Repeatedly and Openly Admit that

Palestine is not a ‘‘State’’ Conclusively Establishes thatPalestine Does not Meet the Conditions Required to Accedeto ICC Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

11.3 That Palestine is not Recognized as a ‘‘State’’ by KeyInternational Institutions is Additional Indication that theInternational Community Does not Recognize Palestine asa ‘‘State’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

11.4 That no Arab Palestinian State Currently Exercises SovereignControl Over Claimed Palestinian ‘‘Territory’’ Also Confirmsthat Palestine is not a ‘‘State’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

11.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459

Contents xvii

12 Palestine Statehood: A Rejoinder to Professor RobertWeston Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461John Quigley12.1 Professor Ash’s Sect. 11.2: Statements by Palestinian

Officials and Palestinian Participation in the Peace Process . . . 46212.2 Professor Ash’s Sect. 11.3: The International Community . . . . 46312.3 Professor Ash’s Sect. 11.4: The Attributes of Statehood . . . . . 46612.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468

13 ICC Jurisdiction Over Acts Committed in the Gaza Strip:Article 12(3) of the ICC Statute and Non-State Entities . . . . . . . . 469Yaël Ronen13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46913.2 Preconditions for ICC Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47313.3 Admission of the Palestinian Declaration as that of a

Full-Fledged State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47613.4 Admission Under Article 12(3) of a Declaration by a

Quasi-State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48113.5 Institutional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48513.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492

14 In Defence of Functional Interpretation of Article 12(3):A Response to Yaël Ronen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497Yuval Shany14.1 The Statute’s Delegation-Based Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49814.2 The Interpretative Question: Can a Non-State Entity be

Regarded as a State?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50014.3 The Rome Statute’s Object and Purpose is Well-Served

by a Functional Approach to Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50314.4 The Plot Thickens: The Oslo Accords. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50614.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511

15 Note on the Legal Effects of Palestine’s Declaration UnderArticle 12(3) of the ICC Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513Vera Gowlland-Debbas15.1 A Functional Approach to Statehood for Purposes of

Article 12(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51415.2 Interpretative Approaches to Article 12(3) of the Statute . . . . . 51515.3 The International Status of Palestine Under the Relevant

Rules of International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51715.3.1 Obligations Toward the United Nations. . . . . . . . . . . 517

xviii Contents

15.3.2 Palestine’s International Status and the Legitimacyof Statehood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518

15.3.3 Obligations Under International Law of the StatesParties to the ICC Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524

Part IV Non Judicial Responses: The Russell Tribunal on Palestine

16 The Russell Tribunal on Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527Frank Barat and Daniel Machover16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52716.2 Background to the RToP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53016.3 The First International Session of the Russell Tribunal on

Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53216.4 The Call for the Suspension of the EU-Israel Association

Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53516.5 The Second International Session of the Russell Tribunal on

Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53716.6 Corporate Liability for Complicity in International Law

Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53816.7 The Third International Session of the Russell Tribunal

on Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54016.8 Russell Tribunal on Palestine: An Enduring Legacy . . . . . . . . 541References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542Annex to Chapter 16: Executive Summaries of the Findings

of the International Sessions of the Russell Tribunalon Palestine, Barcelona, March 2010, and London,November 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543

Part V Concluding Remarks

17 International (In)Justice and Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581John DugardAnnex to Chapter 17: Report of the Independent Fact Finding

Committee on Gaza Presented to the League of Arab States,30 April 2009—‘No Safe Place’, Executive Summary . . . . . . 586

Contents xix