A previous post reported
ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s press release announcing a preliminary
investigation into the Palestine-Israel situation. There is currently continued
confusion concerning Palestine’s eligibility for accession to the Rome
Statute. The Prosecutor’s press release addressed this issue.
In her statement, the
Prosecutor distinguishes between the eligibility of Palestine’s
Rome Statute article 12(3) declaration lodged on January 22, 2009
and Palestine’s more recent ratification of the Rome Statute and
simultaneous presentation of a new, second declaration. When Palestine
lodged the first declaration with the ICC in 2009, Palestine’s status at
the United Nations (UN) existed as “an observer entity.” There were no
general international law provisions to guide the Court on how it should
respond to this situation. It therefore made its own decision that Palestine
was not a state eligible to make the declaration.
As the Prosecutor pointed
out in her statement, the UN General Assembly granted
Palestine “non-member observer State” status on November 29, 2012.
Palestine thereafter presented both the second declaration and a document
of ratification to UN Secretary General (UNSG), Ban Ki Moon. This invoked
his responsibilities under international law as “depository” of the Rome
Statute. These responsibilities are to manage ratifications of those treaties
which designate him for this status. Acting in this capacity as
depository, the UNSG independently determined, in light of the
General Assembly’s 2012 decision, that Palestine now had statehood status
and eligibility to ratify the Rome Statute. He therefore accepted
Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute on January 6, 2015,
following Palestine’s deposit of the instruments of accession. Under
international law, once the depository has acted, officials or judges of
the ICC are pre-empted from making any determination about
Palestine’s eligibility to ratify the Rome Statute, a fact underscored in
the Prosecutor’s statement.
We accept
and agree with the Prosecutor’s explanation of this pre-emption.
Written by Michaela Connolly
No comments:
Post a Comment