Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

At some point the claim of jurisdiction has to be adjudicated, as it states here:

"The Chamber provided a legal answer based on the strict interpretation of the Rome Statute. It emphasised that the issue of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court would have to be further examined when the Prosecutor submits an application for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or summons to appear. The Chamber declined to address the arguments regarding the Oslo Accords in the context of the present proceedings and indicated that these issues may be raised at a later stage of the proceedings."

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p...

Did the legal government of Palestine do the initial request in 2015? That would have been Hamas, since Hamas was the last elected government of Palestine. I would be surprised if Hamas acceded to the ICC's jurisdiction.

Can a non-state actor be accorded the same rights as a state under the Rome accords? Is the "government of Palestine" an actual entity?

If an entity other than the authorized government accepts jurisdiction of the ICC, does that count?

I mean, this isn't even getting the actual meat of the case and it's already a mess.



At the time of the letter, Hamas and Fatah were in a unity government [1], although that's maybe disputable too. If Wikipedia is accurate and complete, Hamas claimed at the end of November 2014, that the unity government had expired; but then in June 2015, Hamas rejected the dissolution of the unity government.

But yeah, you're right, my summary was overly brief --- the earlier ruling was more that there's a reasonable question of if they have jurisdiction, so investigations can proceed. As opposed to before where the court ruled that it didn't have jurisdiction, and couldn't proceed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Hamdallah_Government


From the same article:

"Like the former emergency governments after June 2007, which were installed by presidential decree, this unity government was in fact illegal, as it was not approved by the Legislative Council.[2][3] Without the cooperation of all parties, however, it was not possible to get the necessary quorum to put a vote.[20]"


IMHO, it's pretty hard to tell what's legal and not, when all of the elected officials are way past their elected terms, and the bodies are not in session.

Article 43 seems to give pretty wide berth for the President to operate when the Legislative Council is not in session, and if the Legislative Council is never expected to be in session, there's no mechanism to reign that in.

> Article (43) The President of the National Authority shall have the right in exceptional cases, which can not be delayed, and while the Legislative Council is not in session, to issue decisions and decrees that have the power of law. However, the decisions issued shall be presented to the Legislative Council in the first session convened after their issuance, otherwise they will cease to have the power of law. If these decisions were presented as mentioned above, but were not approved, then they shall cease to have the power of law.

To be honest, not a lot of countries have laws that contemplate continuance of government in case elections are not held.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: