Palestine and The International Criminal Court Prospects and Challenges For 2023 Content File PDF

You have downloaded a document from
The Central and Eastern European Online Library
The joined archive of hundreds of Central-, East- and South-East-European publishers,

research institutes, and various content providers
Source: Revue Européenne du Droit Social
European Journal of Social Law
Location: Romania
Author(s): Lamri Hakim
Title: PALESTINE AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, PROSPECTS AND
CHALLENGES FOR 2023
PALESTINE AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, PROSPECTS AND
CHALLENGES FOR 2023
Issue: 2/2023
Citation Lamri Hakim. "PALESTINE AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, PROSPECTS
style: AND CHALLENGES FOR 2023". Revue Européenne du Droit Social 2:97-107.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1102942
CEEOL copyright 2023
PALESTINE AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT,

PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES FOR 2023
Hakim LAMRI*
Abstract: This study deals with the prospects and challenges of achieving international
criminal justice in Palestine in light of the decision of the International Criminal Court issued
on February 5, 2021, which establishes its jurisdiction over the crimes committed by Israel in
the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. The Israeli accused of the massacres and
violations they commit against the Palestinian state's land, people and government, in light of
the challenges it faces.
Keywords: International Criminal Court decision; Israel's crimes; Public Prosecutor's
Office; Palestine.
DOI 10.53373/ REDS.2023.59.2.015
Introduction
The recognition of Palestine as an observer state at the United Nations

constituted an important historical turning point that has important political and legal
repercussions in the way of holding Israel accountable through the international
judiciary, through joining all international treaties, covenants and agreements that
contribute to that accountability, the most prominent of which is joining the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court On December 31, 2014, Palestine joined
the Rome Convention on the establishment of the International Criminal Court, in
accordance with the Palestinian request dated June 13, 2014, and the agreement
entered into force for the Palestinians on April 01, 2015. With this announcement of
acceptance of accession, the State of Palestine becomes Member No. 123 of the
court, which was established in 2002. Thus, the occupied Palestinian territories in
1967 fall within the scope and work of the criminal court.
By December 20, 2019, the ICC Prosecutor concluded that all criteria set forth
in the Statute for Determining the ICC's Jurisdiction were met. It also requested Pre-
Trial Chamber I to confirm its decision to open an investigation in view of the highly
contested exceptional legal and factual issues involved in this situation. On February
5, 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I ruled that the Court could exercise its criminal
jurisdiction in the situation in Palestine, which extends to Gaza and the West Bank,
including East Jerusalem.
* Professor PhD at the Faculty of Law, Tipaza University, Algeria, email: [email protected].
97

Revue europénnee du droit social
Problematic: In light of the above, we raise the following problem: To what

extent is it possible to prosecute the Israeli suspects before the International Criminal
Court in light of the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber to have jurisdiction over the
situation in Palestine?
The first topic: the trial of Israeli war criminals before the International
Criminal Court.
In front of the heinous crimes and gross violations of human rights committed
against the defenseless Palestinian people by the usurping Zionist entity, which
continued for decades, and which constituted a flagrant violation of various
international conventions and covenants for the protection of human rights,
international voices called for the need to prosecute Israeli war criminals, which
posed a challenge The International Criminal Court, as it was established specifically
to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of international crimes, especially after the
accession of the State of Palestine to its statute, which prompted it to open a
preliminary study into the Israeli crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian
territories, which ended after five years with the Public Prosecutor issuing a decision
regarding The scope of the ICC's territorial jurisdiction over Palestinian territory,
agreed by Pre-Trial Chamber I to include territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
The first requirement: the preliminary study by the Office of the Public
Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court of the Palestinian case, “the
Palestinian request.”
The three steps taken by the Palestinian Authority towards the International
Criminal Court were closely linked to the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip. In the
aftermath of the first war on the Gaza Strip (2008/2009), the authority filed a
declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the court, and submitted a request to
investigate Israel’s crimes, but the Attorney General Ocampo rejected it on the
grounds that the status of Palestine at that time was just an “observer entity” in the
United Nations, not a “state.” ". Even after Palestine obtained the status of a “non-
member observer state” at the United Nations in 2012, the Authority did not take the
necessary measures to officially join the court before January 2015, by joining the
Rome Statute establishing the court, that is, in the aftermath of the third war on the
Gaza Strip in the summer of 2015. 2014. The authority waited until the events of the
“Great March of Return” broke out in the Gaza Strip on March 30, 2018, to refer the
situation in Palestine to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which is an important
step that exempts the Public Prosecutor from asking permission from the Pre-Trial
Chamber to open an investigation.
On 20 December 2019, the Prosecutor declared that she was “convinced that
there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation regarding the situation in
Palestine,” and submitted a motion to the Pre-Trial Chamber I Judges for a ruling to
clarify the territorial scope of the Court's jurisdiction in the case of Palestine.
98

On February 5, 2021, the Pre-Trial Chamber decided, by majority, that the Court
may exercise its criminal jurisdiction over the situation in Palestine, and that the
territorial scope of this jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, given that Palestine is a party to the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court.
The first section: the first preliminary study of the Palestinian case.
As a result of the Israeli crimes committed in Palestine after the Israeli
aggression on the Gaza Strip in late 2008, the Palestinian National Authority
deposited, on January 22, 2009, a declaration with the Registrar of the International
Criminal Court, recognizing the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Court to try the perpetrators of international crimes in Palestine since July
1, 2002. According to Article 12/3 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court,
which allows states that are not parties to the Court to accept the exercise of the
Court’s jurisdiction over them, however, the Attorney General at the time, and after
more than 03 years of preliminary study in the case of Palestine, announced on April
03, 2012 his decision to close This study rejected Palestine's accession request and
refused to open an investigation into the Palestinian situation, arguing that the
request was not correct in its procedural aspect, which is that the Palestinian
Authority is not an internationally recognized sovereign state, and therefore it is not
entitled to membership in the Court.
The second section: the second preliminary study in the Palestinian case:
On January 16, 2015, the Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Permanent
International Criminal Court decided to initiate a second preliminary study of the
situation in Palestine on the basis of the Palestinian declaration deposited with the
Court under Article 12, Paragraph 03, by accepting the jurisdiction of the Criminal
Court retroactively to June 13, 2014, which coincided with the time mandate
entrusted to the Committee. The International Fact-Finding Committee on the
massive Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip in 2014, which was chaired by
the American Judge, Mary McGowan Davis.
The decision of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court to initiate a preliminary examination and study of the situation in Palestine,
based on the above-mentioned Palestinian declaration, as the Prosecutor decided that
Palestine could file a declaration under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, based on
United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 19/67 of 2012, according to which
Palestine was granted observer state status in the United Nations.
This preliminary study is considered a preliminary measure taken by the
Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to examine the information available
to it, with the aim of reaching an informed decision based on sufficient information
regarding verifying the availability of a reasonable basis upon which to base the
accusation against the perpetrator of the international crime in accordance with the
criteria specified in the Statute in accordance with What is stipulated in Article 53/1,
99

whereby the public prosecutor must consider issues related to jurisdiction and
admissibility in order to reach a decision to open an investigation or not, in addition
to refuting the defenses and opinions presented to her office by the concerned parties
during the preliminary study.
Section Three: The Third Preliminary Study of the Palestinian Case:

On December 20, 2019, the Prosecutor announced the end of the preliminary
study in the case of Palestine after four years of work, and it was expected of her
either to declare that there is a reasonable basis for opening an investigation, given
the existence of a referral from the State of Palestine, and here it is not required to
request permission to open an investigation from the Pre-Trial Chamber To start the
case proceedings, or to announce the preservation of the file similar to the
announcement made by the former prosecutor, Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo, on the
same issue in 2009, but it surprised everyone by directing a request to the Pre-Trial
Chamber to decide on the extent of the court’s territorial jurisdiction in the case of
Palestine under Article 12/2/a of the Statute Rome in the case of Palestine, since
there are unique issues highly contested, namely the territory, acting under Article
19/3 of the Rome Statute) Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court, 2019.
The latter issued its decision on February 05, 2021, by majority, that the court
may exercise its criminal jurisdiction over the situation in Palestine, and that the
territorial scope of this jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem.
Twelve years after the Palestinian Authority turned to the International Criminal
Court, an investigation was opened into alleged war crimes committed in the
Palestinian territories in March 2021, after the court recognized that it has
jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly the West Bank and
Gaza Strip. and East Jerusalem. The investigation was transferred to the attention of
the new British Attorney General, Karim Khan, after assuming the position on June
16, 2021 for a period of nine years, succeeding the Gambian Fatou Bensouda.
Accordingly, the prosecution's approach to investigating the files that were referred
to his office will change.
The second requirement: the alleged crimes that the Office of the Public
Prosecutor studies in the framework of its preliminary study.
The fifth report of 2015 regarding the statement of preliminary examination
activities issued by the Public Prosecution Office on November 12, 2015 stated that
as of November 2015, it had received 66 reports in accordance with Article 15 in
relation to alleged crimes committed since June 13, 2014. This report stated that the
Public Prosecution Office assesses whether There were reasonable grounds for
believing that crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court were committed in
Palestine, and on the basis of the information presented in this report, it remains
unclear how the Office of the Prosecutor will make progress in its overall objective
100

of giving effect to the lofty goals of the Rome Statute: to end impunity By
encouraging honest national trials, and preventing crimes in relation to Palestine.
As for the report of the sixth preliminary examination activities, issued by the
Public Prosecution Office on November 14, 2016, it stated that as of November
2016, it had received 86 communications according to Article 15 regarding alleged
crimes committed since June 13, 2014 in relation to the Palestinian case.
The sixth report indicates that according to multiple sources, more than 2,000
Palestinians were killed, including more than 1,000 civilians, according to
allegations, and according to reports, more than 70 Israelis, including 6 civilians,
were injured, while more than 11,000 Palestinians and up to 1,600 Israelis were
injured as a result of the hostilities.
The alleged crimes committed by the Israel Defense Forces (alleged attacks on
residential buildings and civilians, alleged attacks on UNRWA schools, alleged
attacks on civilian objects and other infrastructure, alleged settlement activities,
alleged ill-treatment of Palestinians who are arrested, detained and tried in a system
Israeli military courts. The report also refers to a summary of what it called alleged
crimes committed by Palestinian armed groups (alleged attacks on civilians, alleged
use of protected persons as shields, allegations of ill-treatment of persons accused of
collaborating with Israel).
In the latest developments in the Palestinian official actions before the Office of
the Public Prosecutor, on October 30, 2015, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
State of Palestine, Riyad Al-Malki, handed the Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and
members of her office at the headquarters of the International Criminal Court, a
supplementary memorandum to the legal memorandum that he had delivered to her
on August 3, 2015.
Palestine handed over four files to the International Criminal Court, and these
files are awaiting the opening of an official investigation by the Prosecutor of the
International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, in The Hague. In the West Bank and
East Jerusalem, the file of prisoners, and the file of field executions, house
demolitions, and collective punishment.
On May 22, 2018, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court received a
referral from the Government of the State of Palestine, specifically pursuant to
Articles 13 (a) and 14 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. will
be committed in the future, throughout the territory of the State of Palestine.”
Pursuant to Article 45 of the Court's statute, the Presidency of the Court was notified
of this referral.
The second topic: the challenges of prosecuting Israel before the international
criminal courts.
It seems clear from the precedents in the matter of prosecuting Israel that the
international community is not serious about prosecuting the Israelis suspected of
committing war crimes or crimes against humanity against the Palestinians at a
time when the whole world is witnessing the scale of the Israeli crimes committed
against the Palestinians, and this may be due to the imbalance of international
101

powers. And its progress to work in favor of Israel, and the role of the international
community in the face of these crimes and in most incidents is limited to timid
condemnation and condemnation. The prosecution of Israeli war criminals
encounters a number of challenges and obstacles that differ in terms of their
political, legal or procedural nature.
The first requirement: the challenges facing Palestine before the International
Criminal Court.
There are many challenges facing the Palestinians, the first of which is preparing
files to prosecute Israeli officials for crimes committed against the Palestinian
people, in a scientific and documented manner that allows the criminal court to open
investigations regarding these crimes, and Israel may open investigations in cases
that the State of Palestine may bring in the criminal court, as the court does not accept
Considering cases that are being investigated locally, Israel may open an
investigation in cases that are being brought before the court in order to delay them
as long as possible, and reviewing some cases from the court before officially
approving them may take between 04 to 05 years.
If the attorney general's office determines that Israel is able to adjudicate these
crimes in fair trials, it may also conclude that it does not need to initiate an
investigation, and Israel will escape accountability.
The most prominent of these challenges are as follows:
The first section: Israel's refusal to cooperate with the International

Criminal Court.
After the decision of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court,
officially, on March 3, 2021, to open an investigation into international crimes
committed in the territory of the State of Palestine, which includes the West Bank,
East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. In light of its efforts to move the investigation
forward, the court sent, through the Attorney General at the time (Fatou Bensouda),
a letter to the Israeli government asking it to cooperate with it regarding the
investigation, but the latter explicitly announced its unwillingness to cooperate,
attributing this to the fact that the court does not have any authority to conduct
investigations. Concerning Israel as it is not a party to the Rome Statute.
The Israeli response to this letter came by supporting the Israeli government for
its official rejection of the letter addressed by the Office of the Prosecutor of the
International Criminal Court, after intensive consultations carried out by "Israel",
and the last of these consultations was the adoption of the recommendations of the
ministerial team headed by the National Security Council. The Israeli, who
recommended not to cooperate with the court, while not leaving the Prosecutor's
letter unanswered, but rather responding to it and explaining that the court is
behaving without jurisdiction, and that Israel is a state of law that will be able to
conduct investigations internally.
It is worth noting that the rejection of this letter to the court is not a new matter in
the Israeli dealings with it, because Israel refused from the outset to deal with the court.
102

As an extension of its rejection of the Palestinian path of resorting to the court. This
was evident from the first moments in which Palestine headed for this path, and its
position was evident in many statements condemning every progress the Palestinian
cause was making in the corridors of the court, in addition to the major diplomatic
pressures it exerted on the side of its ally, the United States of America, to dissuade
the authority. The Palestinian Authority refrained from continuing the course of the
court, including the sanctions that former President Donald Trump imposed on some
of the court’s employees, including the former public prosecutor herself.
Accordingly, Israel's decision to refrain from cooperating with the court will
constitute an obstacle to the Public Prosecution's ability to conduct investigations,
select specific cases, and prosecute alleged criminals, as Israel's reluctance to
cooperate may not impede obvious and obvious cases such as Israel's settlement
activities and the effects of the blockade imposed on Gaza. and some Israeli attacks
during Operation Protective Edge, but it will impede the ability of the prosecution to
investigate more complex cases involving hostilities carried out by Israel in the Gaza
Strip and certain Israeli law enforcement operations in the West Bank.
The second section: the principle of selectivity in dealing.

It seems clear that the selective application of the rules of the Statute of the
International Criminal Court, and the rules of international criminal law, is what Israel
is doing in Palestine, which is considered the best example of violating the rules of
international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Israel did not
remain one of the rules of international human rights law, and the rules of international
humanitarian law, but violated them, and practiced types of violations regarding them
that are classified as international crimes. As it violated the rules contained in the four
Geneva Conventions of 1949, the two additional protocols of 1977, so it bombed
civilians, killed hostages, confiscated property, attacked holy places and hospitals...etc,
in addition to using internationally prohibited weapons in its aggression against the
Palestinian people and settlement crimes, which means the outcome Committing war
crimes as defined in international humanitarian law. As for its crimes against
humanity, examples of it are not counted as killing, psychological and physical torture,
theft, and others. As for the crime of aggression, it attacked Arab countries in 1948 and
1967, occupied lands, and bombed Iraqi reactors in 1982. It participated in the tripartite
aggression against Egypt in 1956; However, despite all these crimes, international
criminal law was not applied to them.
As for the International Criminal Court, its statute favored Israel. As its crimes
will remain far from the jurisdiction of the court, because it exercises its jurisdiction
only over crimes committed after the entry into force of the Basic Law. It is as if the
Statute of the International Criminal Court was cut according to the size of Israel
under the influence of a skilled tailor called the United States of America.
Israel did not become a party to the Statute, and the United States announced
that it refuses to interpret the provisions of the Statute in a political way against
Israel, and it is not conceivable that Israel would cooperate in the International
103

Criminal Court, especially after it became clear to it that the International Criminal
Court could exercise its jurisdiction over what it committed. crimes against the
Palestinian people.
Section III: Slow litigation procedures before the International Criminal

Court.
The International Criminal Court’s judiciary is recent, as the first ruling it ruled
was in 2012 and until the beginning of 2014, the court had only completed two cases,
and there are dozens of cases that the court is still considering, and all experts
confirm that the cases in the International Criminal Court require years, and despite
that We must move forward in this path, even if the results take a very long time,
because rights do not expire by statute of limitations.
Based on the aforementioned practices and potential political considerations,
some experts predict that the International Criminal Court may take years before
opening an investigation, followed by other investigations, to issue decisions, and
given the politicization of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the limited resources
available to the Public Prosecutor, and the lack of cooperation of states, means that
the path of Palestine in the court It may follow the path of Afghanistan and Colombia,
where the initial studies took 08 and 10 years.
The second requirement: the politicization of international criminal justice.

The politicization of the international criminal judiciary has led to Israel's
repeated impunity for the crimes it committed against Palestinian civilians, and the
failure to implement the principles of justice and equity for the victims to encourage
Israel to commit more crimes and attacks against the Palestinians, and to grant Israeli
war criminals guarantees and immunity. This is evident in several The most
important considerations:
The first section: the global judiciary retreated from prosecutions for
political purposes.
Among the reasons that led to Israel’s impunity is the absence of the global
judiciary, and its retreat from the task of pursuing and prosecuting international
criminals, for political purposes related to the imbalance of power in the region, as
the political pressure exerted on the Spanish judiciary in 2010 resulted in the
cancellation of the trial of 07 of The leaders of Israel were accused of committing
war crimes, and the trial file was completely closed. Due to political and diplomatic
pressure, Spanish law was amended on May 19, 2009 to limit universal jurisdiction,
so that only cases in which there are Spanish victims, or the case of the accused is
on Spanish soil, are considered.. And 13 other trials that had begun to be prepared
for war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa were cancelled.
Likewise, with regard to the Belgian law, it was amended several times, most
recently in 2003, when it dealt with the issue of diplomatic immunity for political
leaders, due to American and Israeli pressure on the Belgian government, following
104

the lawsuit filed before the Belgian judiciary against former Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon in June 2011, regarding the events of Sabra and Shatila.
In Norway, a lawsuit was filed against Israeli officials, led by Ehud Olmert, for
their responsibility for committing war crimes during Operation Cast Lead, but the
Norwegian Public Prosecutor decided to freeze the case on the pretext that Norway
did not have sufficient means to pursue the case, but it admitted the existence of
crimes committed during the war on Gaza.
Hence, the global judiciary must stand up to its responsibilities of achieving
justice and fairness to the aggressors, and take its role in prosecuting and punishing
all those responsible for the commission of international crimes.
The second requirement: the politicization of international criminal justice.

The politicization of the international criminal judiciary has led to Israel's
repeated impunity for the crimes it committed against Palestinian civilians, and the
failure to implement the principles of justice and equity for the victims to encourage
Israel to commit more crimes and attacks against the Palestinians, and to grant Israeli
war criminals guarantees and immunity. This is evident in several The most
important considerations:
The first section: the global judiciary retreated from prosecutions for political
purposes.
Among the reasons that led to Israel’s impunity is the absence of the global
judiciary, and its retreat from the task of pursuing and prosecuting international
criminals, for political purposes related to the imbalance of power in the region, as
the political pressure exerted on the Spanish judiciary in 2010 resulted in the
cancellation of the trial of 07 of The leaders of Israel were accused of committing
war crimes, and the trial file was completely closed. Due to political and diplomatic
pressure, Spanish law was amended on May 19, 2009 to limit universal jurisdiction,
so that only cases in which there are Spanish victims, or the case of the accused is
on Spanish soil, are considered.. And 13 other trials that had begun to be prepared
for war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa were cancelled.
Likewise, with regard to the Belgian law, it was amended several times, most
recently in 2003, when it dealt with the issue of diplomatic immunity for political
leaders, due to American and Israeli pressure on the Belgian government, following
the lawsuit filed before the Belgian judiciary against former Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon in June 2011, regarding the events of Sabra and Shatila.
In Norway, a lawsuit was filed against Israeli officials, led by Ehud Olmert, for
their responsibility for committing war crimes during Operation Cast Lead, but the
Norwegian Public Prosecutor decided to freeze the case on the pretext that Norway
did not have sufficient means to pursue the case, but it admitted the existence of
crimes committed during the war on Gaza.
Hence, the global judiciary must stand up to its responsibilities of achieving
justice and fairness to the aggressors, and take its role in prosecuting and punishing
all those responsible for the commission of international crimes.
105

Conclusion:
From all of the above, we conclude that the announcement by the Prosecutor of
the International Criminal Court of her decision to open the investigation in Palestine
on March 3, 2021, after Pre-Trial Chamber I confirmed that the court’s territorial
jurisdiction includes the lands occupied by Israel since 1967, especially Gaza, the
West Bank, including Jerusalem. Eastern, a real challenge to establish the credibility
of the court and confirm its independence in order to put an end to the crimes
committed in Palestine, if it managed to maintain this position in the subsequent
procedural stages, and it also constitutes a decisive turning point in the course of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Conclusions:
1- The case of Palestine before the Criminal Court took three preliminary
studies, which lasted more than a decade, for the decision to open the investigation
to be issued, and it is expected that the way before the Public Prosecution, after this
decision, will be long and complicated.
2- Dealing with the standard of duplicity practiced by the Security Council
prevented the application of the Statute of the International Criminal Court to what
Israel is committing against the Palestinians, while the case of Ukraine attracted great
international attention in the Security Council.
3- Holding Israeli officials accountable for their crimes remains difficult to
achieve in the face of the negative effects of the politicization of the International
Criminal Court in its exercise of its judicial powers, through the Security Council’s
strong position that has led to the predominance of the political nature over the
judicial powers conferred on the court, and this leads to double standards in
accountability and punishment. for the most serious crimes.
Recommendations:
1- Follow up on Palestine's accession to other international organizations and
treaties related to human rights and international humanitarian law.
2- The follow-up and trial of the perpetrators should not be limited through the
International Criminal Court only, but the opponents should be besieged by other
mechanisms, and the international community, represented by the Security Council,
should be urged to establish a special criminal court for Palestine.
3- Working to collect evidence that incriminates the Israeli leaders, because the
lesson in investigation and conviction is evidence of proof.
4- The necessity of working to distance the International Criminal Court from
political influences and the intervention of the Security Council in its work so that it
can play its role in prosecuting and punishing Israeli war criminals.
106

List of references:
First: International resolutions and agreements.
1- United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 67/19 of 2012.
2- - The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Secondly: books
1- Saeed Talal Al-Dahshan, How do we sue Israel, the international prosecution of Israel and
its leaders for their crimes against the Palestinians, 01st edition, 2017, Al-Zaytouna Center
for Studies and Consultations, Beirut, 2017.
Second: University Theses

1- Muhammad Saber Basal, International Criminal Responsibility of the Israeli Occupation for
its Crimes in the Gaza Strip during the 2014 Aggression, Master Thesis, Diplomatic Studies
and International Relations Program, Al-Aqsa University, Gaza, Palestine, 2016.
Third: articles
1- Rabit Rashida, Legal Obstacles that Prevent the International Criminal Court from
Exercising Its Judicial Powers in Confronting Israeli Crimes Committed in the Occupied
Palestinian Territories, Voice of Law Magazine Volume 05, Issue 20/October 2018.
2- Samer Musa, the preliminary examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor at the
International Criminal Court, Al-Isra University Journal of Scientific Conferences, Issue 02,
2018, July 2018, Gaza, Palestine, 2018.
3- Maryam Lukal, Commenting on the International Criminal Court’s decision on the limits of
its territorial jurisdiction in Palestine issued on February 05, 2021, Journal of Legal and
Political Sciences, Volume 13, Issue 01, Al-Wadi University, 2021.
4- Wafa Dridi, Wasila Marzouki, The Case of Palestine Before the International Criminal Court:
A Reading of the Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision, Journal of Human Sciences of Umm Al-
Bouqi University, Volume 09, Issue 02, June 2022.
5- Hakima Kadash, The politicization of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and its
role in undermining its effectiveness, The Truth Journal for Social and Human Sciences,
Volume 15, Issue 02, 2016, Adrar University, 2016,
Third: articles
1- Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, regarding the referral
submitted by Palestine in 2018, on the ICC website: https://www.icc-
cpi.int/pages/item.aspx?name=18522-otp-stat§ln Arabic = Date of access: 12/01/2018.
2- Sarah Qanbar, Palestine in the International Criminal Court, A Slow Path and Politicized
Justice, Al-Quds Newspaper: at: http://cutt.us/Dtc3h, date of access: 01/15/2018.
3- Aisha Al-Basri, The reality of the International Criminal Court and the prospects for
investigating crimes related to the question of Palestine. On the website: https://apa-
inter.com/post.php?id=2465.
4- Valtina Azarov, Palestine in court? The Unexpected Repercussions of Litigation before the
International Criminal Court, Palestinian Politics Network, 2015, on the website: http://al-
shabaka.org, date of access: 02/20/2018.
5- For a full copy of the fifth report on the Statement of Preliminary Examination Activities
issued by the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the year 2015 regarding the Palestinian
application, see the International Criminal Court website: http://www.icc-
cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP- PE-rep- Date of access: 17/01/2018.
107

Palestine and The International Criminal Court Prospects and Challenges For 2023 Content File PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palestine and The International Criminal Court Prospects and Challenges For 2023 Content File PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You have downloaded a document from

The Central and Eastern European Online Library

The joined archive of hundreds of Central-, East- and South-East-European publishers,

Source: Revue Européenne du Droit Social

European Journal of Social Law

European Journal of Social Law