Abstract
This opinion has been written on the request of Maître William Bourdon, Barrister at law before the Court of Paris. It attempts to determine whether the Palestinian Authority’s recognition of the International Criminal Court’s (hereinafter “the ICC” or “the Court”) jurisdiction in a statement dated January 21, 2009, can have any effect for the purpose of Article 12 of the ICC Statute.
Professor of International Law, University Paris-Ouest; former Member and Chairperson, United Nations International Law Commission; Associé de l'Institut de Droit international. The Opinion, originally submitted in French to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, was also published in English, slightly modified, in Journal of International Criminal Justice 8 (2010), 981–999.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Article 13: Exercise of jurisdiction: “The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in Article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if: (a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with Article 14; (b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or (c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with Article 15.”
Article 14: Referral of a situation by a State Party: “1. A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes. 2. As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State referring the situation.”
Article 15: Prosecutor: “1. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.” (paras 3–6 not reproduced).
- 2.
For my stand on that issue, see Pellet 1998, pp. 51–52; in essence, I show there that the statehood of the Palestinian Authority is doubtful to the extent it does not consider itself as a State; I have not changed my mind on this matter, even though it can be argued that the fact that it behaves like a State in some circumstances (for instance when it formulated the declaration reviewed) should lead to put this position in perspective; see also: Daillier et al. 2009, pp. 509–512.
- 3.
Currently more than one hundred States have recognised Palestine as a State, though figures vary rather significantly from one source to the other—see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/state-of-palestineStates_recongising_the_state_of_palestine.
- 4.
See among the numerous examples: the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and on Consular Relations of 1963 (Article 1), the Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties of 1969 and 1986 (Article 2), the Convention against Torture of 1984 (Article 1), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 (Article 1), the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changes (Article 1), the 1997 Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (Article 2) or the 1998 Aarhus Convention Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Article 2).
- 5.
ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 11 April 1949, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Rep. 178. See also below, para 19.
- 6.
Dupuy 2002, pp. 108–109. My translation [« [s]i la personnalité peut varier, en extension comme en contenu, eu égard aux ‘besoins de la communauté’, il n’y a pas de raison pour que le nombre des sujets ne s’accroisse pas en fonction du développement normatif de l’ordre juridique international, reflétant lui-même l’extension des nécessités sociales auxquelles cette ‘faim de droit’ est destinée à répondre. Grâce à cet avis de la Cour, des entités diverses peuvent se voir conférer une personnalité sans pour autant qu’il s’agisse d’un crime de lèse-souveraineté »].
- 7.
Ibid., 111.
- 8.
Ibid., 112.
- 9.
Ibid., 112.
- 10.
The example of Monaco is given on p. 111; one can also think of the example of Andorra, before its 1993 constitution.
- 11.
See also the definition of a “country” in the Explanatory Notes of the Agreement Establishing the WTO dated April 15, 1994: “The terms ‘country’ or ‘countries’ as used in this Agreement and the Multilateral Trade Agreements are to be understood to include any separate customs territory Member of the WTO.”
- 12.
ECJ, French Republic v Commission, Case C-482/99, Rep. p. I-04397, Opinion of the Advocate General, December 13, 2001, ibid., para 56. See the Court’s ruling in this case (dated May 16, 2002, para 55).
- 13.
ECJ, Farell, case C-356/05, ruling dated April 19, 2007, Rep. p. I-03067, para 40. See also Case C-188/89 Foster and Others [1990] ECR I-3313, para 20; Case C-343/98 Collino and Chiappero [2000] ECR I-6659, para 23; and Case C-157/02 Rieser Internationale Transporte [2004] ECR I-1477, para 24.
- 14.
Which provides for the possibility that a European ‘country’ become an associate member.
- 15.
ECHR, Plenary, req n° 12747/87, Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain, ruling dated June 26, 1992, paras 67 and 86.
- 16.
Maffezini v. Spain, Case N° ARB/97/7, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000, ICSID Rev.—For. Investment L. Jl., pp. 27–28, paras 74–75.
- 17.
Forteau 2007, pp. 762–763. My translation [« sous un angle distinct de celui de l’attribution au sens du droit de la responsabilité, car ‘l’État’ peut avoir un sens particulier dans le contexte du litige »].
- 18.
[Footnote 118]: “Of which for the rest, one of the most obvious expressions is Article 3 of the United Nations Charter on the basis of which original UN member states have been considered to include the federated entities of Ukraine and Belarus (…).” My translation [« Dont, d’ailleurs, une des plus évidentes manifestations est l’article 3 de la Charte des Nations Unies sur la base duquel ont été considérées comme des États membres originaires de l’ONU les entités fédérées de l’Ukraine et de la Biélorussie (…) »].
- 19.
Forteau 2007, p. 768—my translation [« [s]uivant effectivement une ‘approche fonctionnelle’, au demeurant déjà sollicitée par la Cour de La Haye dans son avis de 1949 rendu dans l’affaire de la Réparation des dommages, le droit international contemporain dessine l’État sous la forme d’une figure à géométrie variable, dont le tracé des contours dépend de la matière impliquée, et il le relègue au simple rang d’une ‘notion’ dont l’interprétation dépend de ‘l’économie et de l’objectif des dispositions au sein desquelles’ elle figure (…). Les confins de l’État n’en sont pas moins mouvants, son ‘périmètre’ n’a rien d’une frontière intangible et physiquement bornée. Le droit international appréhende l’État comme une entité qu’il peut lui-même modeler (en témoigne le recours à des définitions conventionnelles de l’État [fn.18] ou la formule jurisprudentielle par laquelle les juridictions internationales ou étrangères décident que telle entité ‘doit être considérée comme’ une émanation de l’Etat), et ce dernier est, dans le droit international contemporain, de plus en plus souvent appréhendé différemment selon la norme appliquée. »]. See also Higgins 2001, pp. 547–562.
- 20.
See ICJ, Judgment, 21 March1953, Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), Preliminary Objection, Rep. 1953, p. 7, para 119 or ICTY, Appeal Chamber, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, IT-94-1-T, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, para 17.
- 21.
Above, n. 17.
- 22.
Advisory Opinion, above, n. 5, p. 179.
- 23.
Ibid., p. 182. See also PCIJ, Advisory Opinion n° 13, 23 July 1926, Competence of the ILO to Regulate Incidentally the Personal Work of the Employer, Series B, N° 13, p. 18.
- 24.
Decision, above, n. 20, paras 10–11. For another illustration of that approach, see for instance: ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 16 October 1975, Western Sahara: “the references to ‘any legal question’ in the abovementioned provisions of the Charter and Statute are not to be interpreted restrictively” (Rep 1975, p. 20, para 18).
- 25.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April 1993, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 July 1996, Merits, Judgment of 26 February 2007; Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina), Judgment of 3 February 2003. Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Provisional Measures, Order of 2 June 1999, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 15 December 2004 (and seven other similar cases); Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 18 November 2008.
- 26.
Although it had not formally given notice of the discontinuance of the proceedings (Rep 2004, pp. 293–295, paras 31–36)—see also the ruling dated November 28, 2008, para 89; for the Preliminary Objections, see pp. 327–328, paras 129–172: in its ruling on the merits of 2007, in the Genocide case (Bosnia Herzegovina), the Court also comments that “No finding was made in those [eight similar] judgments on the question whether or not the Respondent was a party to the Genocide Convention at the relevant time” (Rep 2007, para 83).
- 27.
See in particular Rep 1993, p. 14, para 18; see also the 2007 Judgment, para 130 or the 2008 Judgment, para 75.
- 28.
On all these matters, see Charles de Visscher 1963, p. 263 or Denys Simon 1981, passim—in particular pp. 319–466.
- 29.
ILC, Yearbook 1966, vol. II, p. 218, para (6) of the Commentaries under Draft Article 28.
- 30.
Above, para 1.
- 31.
The question of Palestine ratifying the Statute does not arise for now, but it is not forbidden that it might appear in the future.
- 32.
Article 5, para 1: “The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.”
See also the introduction to Article 13, referring to para 2 of Article 12: “The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in Article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute”.
- 33.
For a clear description of the drafting history that led to the adoption of that principle in spite of the determined opposition of some States, including the United States, see Kaul 2002, pp. 593–605.
- 34.
See in particular Condorelli 1999, p. 18.
- 35.
ECHR, Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, 23 March 1995, n°. 15318/89, para 41. My emphasis.
- 36.
Kaul 2002, p. 609.
- 37.
See above, n. 3.
- 38.
For the full text of the declaration, see above para 3.
- 39.
ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Rep 167, para 78.
- 40.
Eugène Borel’s Arbitral Award in the case of the Dette publique ottomane, RIAA, vol. I, p. 535, my translation [« Quels que soient les effets de l’occupation d’un territoire par l’adversaire avant le rétablissement de la paix, il est certain qu’à elle seule cette occupation ne pouvait opérer le transfert de souveraineté »]; see Pellet 1992, pp. 174–180; in French: “La destruction de Troie n’aura pas lieu—Il n’y a qu’un critère de mise en œuvre du droit de l’occupation de guerre: le respect des droits souverains du peuple soumis à occupation” (Pal YBIL, 1987–1988, pp. 51–58) and the case-law and doctrine cited.
- 41.
See above n. 39, the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, pp. 181–182, para 115 and p. 184, para 122.
- 42.
Even though it denies,—wrongly in my opinion—the occupied territory status of some portions of the territory annexed following the 1967 armed conflict (Golan Heights, East Jerusalem). Among the numerous resolutions of the General Assembly condemning the occupation, one can mention: A/RES/63/29 26 November 2008, A/RES/61/25, 1st December 2006, A/RES/58/21, 3 December 2003 (Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine), A/RES/43/58, 6 December 1988 (Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories). A great number of resolutions of the Security Council also remind Israel of the duties of an occupying country; see en particular 446 (1979), 22 March 1979, 452 (1979), 20 July 1979, 465 (1980), 1st March 1980 or 904 (1994), 18 March 1994.
- 43.
E/1990/6/Add.32, para 5; see also the Advisory Opinion, above, n. 39, Rep 2004, pp. 173–174, para 93 and the ruling of the Supreme Court of Israel dated May 30, 2004, mentioned, same pp. 175–176, para 100.
- 44.
Such is the stand constantly maintained by Israel before the universal human rights conventions monitoring bodies. See CERD/C/ISR/CO/13, para 3. CEDAW, Report by the Committee for the elimination of discrimination against women, August 31, 2005, doc A/60/38, p. 143, para 243, Human Rights Committee, Final Observations of the Human Rights Committee, Israel, August 21, 2003, doc CCPR/CO/78/ISR, para 1.
- 45.
See the General Assembly resolution A/ES–10/2 dated April 23, 1997: “Also convinced, in this context, that the repeated violation by Israel, the occupying Power, of international law and its failure to comply with relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties undermine the Middle East peace process and constitute a threat to international peace and security”. See also A/RES/63/29 dated November 26, 2008, above n. 42.
- 46.
See resolution 242 (1967) dated November 22, 1967, which stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by means of war and calls for the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and “termination of all claims or states of belligerency”; see also resolution 446 (1979) dated March 22, 1979 and more recent resolutions cited above, n. 42.
- 47.
Above, n. 39, Rep 2004, p. 176, paras 98–99.
- 48.
It cannot be a transfer of jurisdiction: the occupying party is certainly not the original holder; see, for instance, on that matter: Bastid-Burdeau 2006, p. 169.
- 49.
See Articles IV and XVII of the Interim Agreement and annex IV, Article I (see also Article VII, para 2, de Oslo Agreement of 13 September 1993).
- 50.
See Article XIX ibid.
- 51.
It is a fact that the Israel Palestinian agreements exclude Israeli citizens from the jurisdiction of Palestinian courts. See Article XVII 4(ii) of the 1995 interim agreement and Article 13(ii) of Appendix IV. But it is doubtful that bilateral agreements prevail over the ICC’s jurisdiction such as specified in its Statute.
- 52.
Above-mentioned Advisory Opinion, note 39, Rep 2004, p. 171, para 89, emphasis added.
- 53.
Ibid., p. 177, para 101.
- 54.
See above, para 17.
- 55.
See above, para 23.
- 56.
Ibid.
- 57.
For a few examples of those justified criticisms, see for instance: Vera Gowlland-Debbas “Collective response to the Unilateral Declarations of Independence of Southern Rhodesia and Palestine: an application of the Legitimizing Function of the United Nations”, BYBIL, Vol. LXI (1990), in particular p. 141 or Fatsah Ouguergouz 2001.
- 58.
Advisory Opinion, above, n. 39, Rep 2004, p. 173, para 91.
- 59.
See ICJ, Judgment, 20 December 1974, Nuclear Tests, Rep 1974, p. 267, para 43 and p. 472, para 46; see also Principles relating to Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, in particular principles n° 1 and 3 (see ILC’s Report on its fifty-eighth session (May 1–June 9–July 3–August 11, 2006) General Assembly, Official Documents, 61st session, Supplement n° 10, (A/61/10) p. 370.
- 60.
This situation could however be unfair to Palestine if it were found that its undertaking was made without any condition of reciprocity—for reasons that do not need to be developed here, it is not my opinion.
- 61.
See Article 77 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, which indisputably shows that Switzerland—which was indeed not responsible for pronouncing on the nature of the PLO’s application—should have informed the Parties to the 1949 Conventions as well as the States eligible to become such Parties.
- 62.
In addition, the Swiss government relied on the fact that “in its capacity as depository of the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, it was not in a position to settle the point of knowing whether that communication has to be considered as a membership instrument in the meaning of the relevant contractual provisions of the Conventions and their additional protocols” (Note d’information du Gouvernement suisse, Berne, 13 September1989, para 2). The Court, which has the kompetenz kompetenz (see above para 16), could not rely on such reasoning.
- 63.
ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Rep 1951, p. 24. See also Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Preliminary Objections, Rep. 1996, p. 611, para 22 and, in the same case, Judgment of 26 February 2007, para 161 and the Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Rep. 1996, p. 257.
- 64.
Rep. 1951, p. 24; see also Rep. 1996, p. 612, para 22.
- 65.
It is not uninteresting to note that Palestine intends to follow up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report, by setting up an independent investigating committee in its territory (see Letter dated 29 January 2010 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, Appendix II, document A/64/651, Report of the Secretary-General, Follow-up to the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The undertaking, which can only be based on the territorial sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority in the occupied territories, is part of the same process than the one that led to the January 21, 2009 declaration.
- 66.
- 67.
“Article 11, Jurisdiction ratione temporis:
1. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.
2. If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under Article 12, para 3.”
- 68.
See above paras 25–28.
- 69.
The declaration is signed by the Minister for Justice, but as noted by the ICJ, “with increasing frequency in modern international relations other persons [other than the Head of State, the Head of Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs] representing a State in specific fields may be authorized by that State to bind it by their statements in respect of matters falling within their purview. This may be true, for example, of holders of technical ministerial portfolios exercising powers in their field of competence in the area of foreign relations, and even of certain officials” (ICJ, Judgment, 3 February 2006, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), para 47.
References
Amnesty International (2009) Report: Israel/Gaza: operation “Cast Lead”: 22 days of death and destruction. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/015/2009/en
Bastid-Burdeau G (2006) Les Références au Droit International dans la Question des Titres de Compétence dans les Territoires de L’ancienne Palestine sous mandat: Incertitudes et Confusion. In: SFDI, Colloque de Rennes, Les compétences de l’Etat en Droit international, Pedone
Condorelli L (1999) La Cour Internationale en débat. RGDIP 1:18
Daillier P, Forteau M, Pellet A (2009) Droit International Public, 8th edn. LGDJ, Paris
de Visscher (1963) Problèmes D’interprétation Judiciaire en Droit International Public, Pedone, Paris
Dupuy P (2002) L’unité de l’Ordre Juridique International, RCADI 297(1):108–109
Forteau M (2007) L’État selon le Droit International: une Figure à Géométrie Variable? RGDIP 4:762–763
Higgins R (2001) The Concept of the ‘State’: Variable Geometry and Dualist Perceptions. In: de Chazournes LB, Gowlland-Debbas V (eds) The International Legal System in Quest of Equity and Universality. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 547–562
Human Rights Watch (2009) Report: Rain of Fire, Israel, Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza. http://www.hrw.org/fr/reports/2009/03/25/rain-fire
Kaul H (2002) Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 593–605
Ouguergouz F (2001) Palestine and the August 12, 1949 Geneva Conventions or the History of an Aborted Membership. In: de Chazournes LB, Gowlland-Debbas V (eds) The International Legal System in Quest of Equity and Universality. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 507–543
Pellet A (1992) The Destruction of Troy Will Not Take Place. In: Playfair E (ed) The Administration of Occupied Territories: The West Bank. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 174–180
Pellet A (1998) Le Droit International à L’aube du XXIème Siècle (La Société Internationale Contemporaine—Permanence et Tendances Nouvelles). In: Cours Euro-méditerranéens Bancaja de Droit International, vol 1, 1997, Aranzadi, Pampelune, pp 51–52
Simon D (1981) L’interprétation Judiciaire des Traités D’organisations Internationales—Morphologie des Conventions et Fonction Juridictionnelle, Pedone, Paris
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pellet, A. (2011). 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?. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-820-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-820-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-819-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-820-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
