(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) - along with its international affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) – today applauded a report issued by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) rejecting claims that accused Israel of war crimes in a conflict in Gaza in 2009. The ACLJ, which presented arguments before the Office of the Prosecutor in support of Israel, says today’s decision represents a significant defeat for those organizations and countries that attempted to demonize Israel by using international law.
“This is a major victory for Israel in the international arena and a sound defeat for the unfounded ‘lawfare’ attack leveled against Israel,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ and ECLJ, who presented arguments before Office of the Prosecutor in support of Israel. “What’s clear is that this legal assault against Israel not only lacked jurisdiction, but amounted to nothing more than an international campaign to discredit and demonize Israel. We applaud the findings of the Office of the Prosecutor, which paralleled our arguments in defense of Israel. This decision closes the case, removes it from the court’s docket, and brings finality to this issue ending a flawed attempt to use the international legal system in an effort to wrongly punish Israel before the international community.”
In January 2009, the Palestinian Authority attempted to accede to the jurisdiction of the ICC by lodging a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC for "acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002." Since only "States" may accede to ICC jurisdiction, the question immediately arose concerning whether Palestine was a "State." For the past three years, the ICC Prosecutor has been examining that question. In a decision released today, the Prosecutor finally determined that there was no firm evidence that Palestine is a state, thereby precluding ICC jurisdiction.
The ECLJ filed numerous legal memoranda and other documents with the ICC arguing that Palestine did not meet the international criteria for statehood, and Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow and other ECLJ attorneys twice met with the ICC Prosecutor to argue against Palestinian accession to the ICC jurisdiction.
The ICC Prosecutor's language reflects the arguments in our documents filed with the ICC.
“The Rome Statute provides no authority for the Office of the Prosecutor to adopt a method to define the term ‘State’ under article 12(3) . . . .” Instead, the ICC Prosecutor recognized that “it is for the relevant bodies at the United Nations” to determine whether Palestine qualifies to be a state. The Prosecutor also concluded: “[T]he current status granted to Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly is that of ‘observer’, not as ‘Non-member State’”. . . . [This] informs the current legal status of Palestine for the interpretation and application of article 12 [which limits accession to States].”
The complete decision by the ICC Prosecutor is posted here.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. and the European Centre for Law and Justice is based in Strasbourg, France.
One of our international affiliates in Africa, the East African Centre for Law and Justice (EACLJ), just assisted in rescuing two young girls facing mutilation and a form of sex slavery as child brides, and our legal team is working to end this barbaric practice. The following is a report from our...
The United Nations (U.N.) is once again accusing Israel of war crimes because Israel lawfully acted in self-defense in response to ongoing indiscriminate rocket attacks from Hamas. On June 22, 2015, the U.N.’s Independent Commission of Inquiry (“the Commission”) submitted its report to the United...
Man’s justice is not perfect, not even that of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that describes itself as “the conscience of Europe”. In a striking turn of events, it appears that the Court made a manifest legal error in the well known Lambert judgment ( Lambert and others v. France ,
Imagine this dramatic scenario: the White House pushes for the United States to abandon its historic role as protector of the Internet, transferring the last vestige of that authority over to a private organization populated by international tech gurus. But the gurus also hold seven smartcards that...