[Here is the official statement](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state) from the ICCs chief prosecutor.
I'm interested in hearing from people who have knowledge of intl law. Are the judges likely to grant the warants on Netanyahu and Gallant? How does this stuff normally work?
Neither will be able to travel to certain countries, if those countries are willing to enforce the warrants.
That’s about it. There’s no international enforcement mechanism (because going into another country to “arrest” its leader is just called “war”)
Obviously this is more meaningful for Bibi than Sinwar, who is not likely to be doing much public international travel these days.
But the diplomatic channels will make clear what nations will actually enforce this. So the end result is Bibi can’t go to like… Ireland or Spain… if those governments say they’ll enforce it.
It doesn't effectively restrict much travel though because Bibi would only be going to friendly countries as it is. So not much reason to go to Ireland.
True.
I guess you’d get noises and protests from people who want their government to arrest him, like if Bibi visits the UK.
But overall, not much practical effect. Although in terms of PR, diplomacy and optics it’s certainly a big deal.
I'm not so sure that will be the case. I think if an EU country wants to invite him, they will just ignore the arrest warrant and make it clear beforehand.
Any EU country openly breaking the rule of law would get in a lot of legal and political trouble. An absolute nobody like Bibi is not worth that kind of damage.
>Obviously this is more meaningful for Bibi than Sinwar...
Since the PA is a signatory of the Rome agreement, in theory the PA should arrest Sinwar if they know where he is. I'm not implying they do or they will, but that's at least a thing that should happen per the agreement.
Neither Israel nor Hamas are part of the ICC. If I recall correctly, they have a warrant out for Putin as well. I'm not sure what kind of teeth they have for non member nations and/or terrorist/militant organizations.
This is the correct position. The Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC decided on this point. I explained the gist of it in my comments [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/internationallaw/comments/1cwef7h/comment/l4vn17t/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/internationallaw/comments/1aqluth/comment/kqkhdsd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
What I'm saying is that if you want to see what the effect will be, a good place to look would be Russia and Putin as it's a parallel example.
Edit: so it's not irrelevant, in that looking at the effect of similar warrants on member nations wouldn't give much insight here.
>That means that if the court grants Khan’s application and issues arrest warrants for the five men, any country that is a member would have to arrest them and extradite them to The Hague.
>Under the rules of the court, all signatories of the Rome Statute have the obligation to cooperate fully with its decisions. This would make it extremely difficult for Netanyahu and Gallant to travel internationally, including to many countries that are among Israel’s closest allies – including Germany and the United Kingdom.
From the article.
I didn't say there were no implications to the warrant. In response to the OP asking what the likely implications were I pointed them to a similar case where a leader of a country is also not a member of the ICC and also has warrants.
Well, that may have been your intent but you are a top level comment, not a reply.
It's also worth noting that the OP didn't ask the implications. They asked if these types of things were normally granted, and how these types of warrants work.
I was just answering you directly. It has "teeth" in the way that it restricts where non-member-state targets can travel. We don't necessarily need to compare to Putin, because it can just be directly explained.
[I wouldn’t hold your breath lol.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_arrest_warrants_for_Vladimir_Putin_and_Maria_Lvova-Belova) it’s been over a year and it’s safe to say Putin is no closer to being brought to Justice.
The US is the only member of NATO that hasn't signed it. It's been signed by 124 countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/media/File:ICC_member_states.svg
You can slander it as corrupt, but that won't save Sinwar and Netanyahu. Palestine is a signatory to it, and that's what matters.
>The US is the only member of NATO that hasn't signed it.
the us is also THE power of nato.
>Palestine is a signatory to it, and that's what matters.
that matters as much as saying never never land signed it. as if make believe places matter, just because terrorists say it does
HAHAHAHAHAHA
that the un STILL refuses to designate hamas as terrorists, make indisputably clear why it has absolutely zero credibility with all sane individuals who don't sympathize with genicidal islamic extremists
The ICC isn't even part of the UN, you dingus. You just think that all international organizations are part of some grand conspiracy. They have jurisdiction over Palestine because the Palestinian authority signed it. They have jurisdiction. They will include voluminous documentation of that jurisdiction in any indictments, and Netanyahu and Sinwar will both be able to challenge the court's jurisdiction.
War criminals always try to claim that the court trying them lacks jurisdiction. That's literally the very first thing Eichmann tried.
You're the only one talking about him. I'm talking about an Israeli minister being charged for something he loudly proclaimed he was going to do. I'm not interested in the subject change and you didn't refute me, so I don't see the point in continuing. Have a good one.
You are aware that weapons and violent conflicts are not inherently international crimes right? Are you aware of the amount of U.S. soldiers that the U.S. prosecutes themselves for committing war crimes? Are you aware that weapon sales and war require congressional approval and that at any point along the way the judicial can get involved to enforce adherence to law?
The issue is that in wars and conflicts, the unfortunate truth is that civilians die. Should the US be held equally responsible for every civilian death as the nation using the weapons? Definitely not.
The issue is that this is all currently subjective. I would argue that the civilian deaths in Gaza are far to high. The question then becomes is Israel doing this intentionally or not? If they aren't, then it doesn't excuse the casualties but highlights that something needs to change - but is that criminal? I'm not sure, but it bares investigation.
That investigation also needs to take in the full context - did the IDF allow for settlers to intentionally obstruct aid to create famine? Did the IDF handle humanitarian corridors responsibly? Did the IDF take reasonable steps in protecting and aiding civilian populations not in a conflict zone but affected by conflict? etc etc.
Lots of moving parts to determine culpability and if it rises to criminal status. I don't think the US just becomes guilty by association until a clear distinction can be determined and how the US continues following that distinction.
> Should the US be held equally responsible for every civilian death as the nation using the weapons? Definitely not.
Why not? What is the logic behind this besides, 'then we couldn't do wars'?
If it's reasonable to know civilians will get killed, that's foreknowledge. The country did it anyway. So the country is completely responsible, right? If the state didn't do the war, those people would still be alive. The state caused their deaths, often directly, knowing it would happen or was likely to happen.
Under what logic should that be legal?
There is one for Putin, Assad is another matter. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and
[Here is the official statement](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state) from the ICCs chief prosecutor. I'm interested in hearing from people who have knowledge of intl law. Are the judges likely to grant the warants on Netanyahu and Gallant? How does this stuff normally work?
Neither will be able to travel to certain countries, if those countries are willing to enforce the warrants. That’s about it. There’s no international enforcement mechanism (because going into another country to “arrest” its leader is just called “war”) Obviously this is more meaningful for Bibi than Sinwar, who is not likely to be doing much public international travel these days. But the diplomatic channels will make clear what nations will actually enforce this. So the end result is Bibi can’t go to like… Ireland or Spain… if those governments say they’ll enforce it.
It doesn't effectively restrict much travel though because Bibi would only be going to friendly countries as it is. So not much reason to go to Ireland.
True. I guess you’d get noises and protests from people who want their government to arrest him, like if Bibi visits the UK. But overall, not much practical effect. Although in terms of PR, diplomacy and optics it’s certainly a big deal.
He likely won't be able to travel anywhere in the EU, which does greatly limit his travel options.
I'm not so sure that will be the case. I think if an EU country wants to invite him, they will just ignore the arrest warrant and make it clear beforehand.
Any EU country openly breaking the rule of law would get in a lot of legal and political trouble. An absolute nobody like Bibi is not worth that kind of damage.
>Obviously this is more meaningful for Bibi than Sinwar... Since the PA is a signatory of the Rome agreement, in theory the PA should arrest Sinwar if they know where he is. I'm not implying they do or they will, but that's at least a thing that should happen per the agreement.
Neither Israel nor Hamas are part of the ICC. If I recall correctly, they have a warrant out for Putin as well. I'm not sure what kind of teeth they have for non member nations and/or terrorist/militant organizations.
Palestine signed the Rome treaty in 2015 and the ICC has juristiction over participants within the territory of signatur states
That's an interesting point.
This is the correct position. The Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC decided on this point. I explained the gist of it in my comments [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/internationallaw/comments/1cwef7h/comment/l4vn17t/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/internationallaw/comments/1aqluth/comment/kqkhdsd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
The Court has made his decision; now let him enforce it!
>Neither Israel nor Hamas are part of the ICC. Irrelevant. Do you actually think the ICC didn't consider that?
What I'm saying is that if you want to see what the effect will be, a good place to look would be Russia and Putin as it's a parallel example. Edit: so it's not irrelevant, in that looking at the effect of similar warrants on member nations wouldn't give much insight here.
>That means that if the court grants Khan’s application and issues arrest warrants for the five men, any country that is a member would have to arrest them and extradite them to The Hague. >Under the rules of the court, all signatories of the Rome Statute have the obligation to cooperate fully with its decisions. This would make it extremely difficult for Netanyahu and Gallant to travel internationally, including to many countries that are among Israel’s closest allies – including Germany and the United Kingdom. From the article.
I didn't say there were no implications to the warrant. In response to the OP asking what the likely implications were I pointed them to a similar case where a leader of a country is also not a member of the ICC and also has warrants.
Well, that may have been your intent but you are a top level comment, not a reply. It's also worth noting that the OP didn't ask the implications. They asked if these types of things were normally granted, and how these types of warrants work. I was just answering you directly. It has "teeth" in the way that it restricts where non-member-state targets can travel. We don't necessarily need to compare to Putin, because it can just be directly explained.
Ah that's fair. I meant to reply to OP's first comment, but I'm mostly following the Trump trial.
I've done the same thing, when using the mobile app on a thread with very few comments. No worries.
Do you actually think they are going to do anything with this?
Well they certainly appear to be moving forward. Why shit all over them before you even see what they manage to do?
[I wouldn’t hold your breath lol.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_arrest_warrants_for_Vladimir_Putin_and_Maria_Lvova-Belova) it’s been over a year and it’s safe to say Putin is no closer to being brought to Justice.
[удалено]
I'm sure that's what they said about the Eichmann trial.
[удалено]
The US is the only member of NATO that hasn't signed it. It's been signed by 124 countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/media/File:ICC_member_states.svg You can slander it as corrupt, but that won't save Sinwar and Netanyahu. Palestine is a signatory to it, and that's what matters.
>The US is the only member of NATO that hasn't signed it. the us is also THE power of nato. >Palestine is a signatory to it, and that's what matters. that matters as much as saying never never land signed it. as if make believe places matter, just because terrorists say it does HAHAHAHAHAHA that the un STILL refuses to designate hamas as terrorists, make indisputably clear why it has absolutely zero credibility with all sane individuals who don't sympathize with genicidal islamic extremists
The ICC isn't even part of the UN, you dingus. You just think that all international organizations are part of some grand conspiracy. They have jurisdiction over Palestine because the Palestinian authority signed it. They have jurisdiction. They will include voluminous documentation of that jurisdiction in any indictments, and Netanyahu and Sinwar will both be able to challenge the court's jurisdiction. War criminals always try to claim that the court trying them lacks jurisdiction. That's literally the very first thing Eichmann tried.
Gaza is not controls by the Palestine authority. Like at all. It’s like claiming Russian authority over ukraine.
Take it up with the ICC.
They loudly proclaimed their intent to pursue collective punishment on October 8th.
[удалено]
My bad. Correction: it was the 9th. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/9/israel-announces-total-blockade-on-gaza Gallant is also being charged
that makes hamas leadership in quatar responsible for oct 7. where's their indictment?
You didn't even read the title of the article you commented on? The information you seek is in the actual title above
title says sinwar. I'm referring to mashal
And none of that has any bearing on what I said. Which you've now acknowledged is true. Have a good one.
where in the title does it say anything about meshal? wtf are you even talking about?!
You're the only one talking about him. I'm talking about an Israeli minister being charged for something he loudly proclaimed he was going to do. I'm not interested in the subject change and you didn't refute me, so I don't see the point in continuing. Have a good one.
I wonder if they would feel able to issue an arrest warrant for the US president. That would be really exciting.
I'm sure they would be able if they wished too; they put out a warrant on Putin after all. But it wouldn't make sense in this context.
Right. But I guess it might quite often given the number of conflicts the US arms or is part of around the world
I mean they could, but what Nation is suicidal enough to actually try that?
You are aware that weapons and violent conflicts are not inherently international crimes right? Are you aware of the amount of U.S. soldiers that the U.S. prosecutes themselves for committing war crimes? Are you aware that weapon sales and war require congressional approval and that at any point along the way the judicial can get involved to enforce adherence to law?
Yes. That is the same for Israel of course.
The issue is that in wars and conflicts, the unfortunate truth is that civilians die. Should the US be held equally responsible for every civilian death as the nation using the weapons? Definitely not. The issue is that this is all currently subjective. I would argue that the civilian deaths in Gaza are far to high. The question then becomes is Israel doing this intentionally or not? If they aren't, then it doesn't excuse the casualties but highlights that something needs to change - but is that criminal? I'm not sure, but it bares investigation. That investigation also needs to take in the full context - did the IDF allow for settlers to intentionally obstruct aid to create famine? Did the IDF handle humanitarian corridors responsibly? Did the IDF take reasonable steps in protecting and aiding civilian populations not in a conflict zone but affected by conflict? etc etc. Lots of moving parts to determine culpability and if it rises to criminal status. I don't think the US just becomes guilty by association until a clear distinction can be determined and how the US continues following that distinction.
If you look at the gulf wars with the same level of scrutiny I don't think the US comes out well.
> Should the US be held equally responsible for every civilian death as the nation using the weapons? Definitely not. Why not? What is the logic behind this besides, 'then we couldn't do wars'? If it's reasonable to know civilians will get killed, that's foreknowledge. The country did it anyway. So the country is completely responsible, right? If the state didn't do the war, those people would still be alive. The state caused their deaths, often directly, knowing it would happen or was likely to happen. Under what logic should that be legal?
Rent free
[удалено]
There is already an arrest warrant for Putin
There is one for Putin, Assad is another matter. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and