The Israel-Palestine dispute is one of the most protracted and divisive conflicts in modern history. It began with overlapping claims to land, national identity, and self-determination and has now escalated into a multidimensional crisis encompassing violent clashes, human rights violations and displacement. Over the years, many rounds of violence, particularly in Gaza, have sparked international anger and calls for responsibility under international law.

However, judicial mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) have experienced significant obstacles in addressing these abuses. Despite the International Criminal Court formally launching an inquiry into alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territory, justice remains distant. This blog examines how the ICC, an institution based on the values of justice and impartiality, is restricted by the complicated geopolitics surrounding Palestine.[1]

The ICC's Jurisdiction over Palestine

The question of whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction over Palestine is a critical legal and political problem. Following the United Nations General Assembly's recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state (Resolution 67/19, 2012), Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute in January 2015 and submitted a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Statute accepting the Court's jurisdiction retroactively to June 13, 2014. This step gives the ICC the legal authority to examine alleged war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

In February 2021, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber I made a key verdict in the Situation in the State of Palestine (ICC-01/18), confirming the Court's geographical jurisdiction over crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territories. This covered potential criminal acts by Israeli officials, Palestinian armed groups, and others.

The decision was based on Palestine's status as a State Party to the Rome Statute and the jurisdictional boundaries outlined in Articles 5–8 of the Statute. However, the verdict sparked an immediate and widespread political response. Israel, which is not a member to the Rome Statute, vigorously opposed the judgment, arguing that Palestine is not a sovereign state and hence cannot delegate authority to the ICC. The Israeli government, backed by numerous important allies, notably the United States and some European countries, claimed that the Court's jurisdiction was being misapplied to achieve political goals.[2]

Despite the legal affirmation, Israel's lack of cooperation and its allies' protective position have significantly impeded the ICC's ability to conduct investigations and prosecutions. As a result, while the jurisdiction exists on paper, its practical implementation is uncertain and significantly impacted by international politics.

Legal Standing vs Political Challenges

The International Criminal Court's authority over the situation in Palestine is legally sound. The Rome Statute gives the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. Palestine's admission to the Statute in 2015, together with its previous Article 12(3) statement, legally empowers the Court to investigate actions committed on its territory or by its nationals.

This view was further supported by the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I's 2021 ruling in the Situation in the State of Palestine (ICC-01/18), which determined that the Court has jurisdiction over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. This followed the 2012 UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19, which raised Palestine's status to "non-member observer state," allowing it to join international accords such as the Rome Statute. Fatou Bensouda, the ICC Prosecutor at the time, stated that the prerequisites under Article 53(1) of the Statute for initiating a formal inquiry had been met.[3]

However, while the legal underpinning is clear, the ICC faces tremendous political opposition that impedes the implementation of its mandate. The greatest visible challenge comes from Israel and its important allies. Israel disputes the Court's jurisdiction, claiming that it is not a party to the Rome Statute and that Palestine lacks the characteristics of a sovereign state required to assign jurisdiction. Furthermore, powerful Western powers such as the United powers, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, have long sheltered Israel from international accountability.

U.S. legislation, like as the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (2002), even permits the use of force to liberate any American detained by the ICC, and has been dubbed the "Hague Invasion Act." Under the Trump administration, key ICC officials were sanctioned in 2020 for their involvement in probes into Afghanistan and Palestine, demonstrating the depth of political opposition.

This geopolitical resistance seriously threatens the ICC's independence and worldwide legitimacy. Despite having a legal mandate, the Court lacks effective enforcement powers. It relies on state cooperation to carry out arrest warrants, gather evidence, and grant access to affected areas. The outcome is a growing disparity between international legal rules and political realities. The ICC may have jurisdiction and legal clarity, but without actual political will from the international community, it remains limited—more of a symbolic player than an effective one in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

In the absence of such cooperation—particularly from Israel, which has minimal clout over Hamas-proceedings stall, and victims are left without recourse. The outcome is a growing disparity between international legal rules and political realities. The ICC may have jurisdiction and legal clarity, but without actual political will from the international community, it remains limited—more of a symbolic player than an effective one in the Israel-Palestine conflict.[4]

Selective Justice and Accusations of Bias

The ICC's fight with selective justice in the Israel-Palestine conflict raises important questions about its jurisdiction, political pressures, and global power dynamics. While the Rome Statute allows the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestinian territory, Israel, which is not a signatory to the Statute, rejects this jurisdiction. Despite the UN General Assembly's designation of Palestine as a non-member observer state and its subsequent admission to the Rome Statute, Israel's refusal to cooperate and the geopolitical power of its allies limit the ICC's ability to act effectively. The ICC has been criticised for its selective approach to justice.

While it has prosecuted numerous African leaders, including Omar al-Bashir in the Prosecutor v. Al Bashir case (ICC-02/05), which dealt with Sudan's war crimes, investigations involving powerful powers, particularly the United powers and its allies, have been limited or avoided. For example, despite the United States' involvement in the Iraq War and the alleged war crimes committed there, the ICC has been hesitant to investigate due to political pressure from Washington.

In the case of Palestine, critics claim that the ICC's failure to address Israeli conduct, particularly settlement development in the West Bank and the 2014 Gaza conflict, proves bias. The ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber I verdict in 2021 confirmed jurisdiction over Palestinian territory, but Israel's political influence, backed by key Western powers, has hampered the Court's work. This selective justice has led to charges that the ICC uses its legal framework inconsistently, with powerful governments sheltering their allies from international punishment.

Ultimately, the ICC's ability to bring justice to the Israel-Palestine conflict is limited by political will, with the Court frequently trapped between international law and geopolitical realities.[5]

Recent Developments and Future Outlook
The Israel-Palestine conflict remains a focal point for international legal scrutiny, particularly in the context of the ICC's involvement. In 2021, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed its jurisdiction over Palestinian territories, paving the way for investigations into alleged war crimes committed by both Israeli forces and Palestinian groups like Hamas. Despite this, significant political resistance has impeded the Court’s ability to move forward effectively. Israel and its allies continue to reject the ICC’s authority, undermining potential prosecutions.

Recent developments, such as the 2023–2024 Gaza escalation, which resulted in significant civilian casualties and widespread destruction, have reignited calls for accountability.[6] Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have urged the ICC to expedite investigations. Yet, the political climate surrounding the conflict—marked by a growing divide between global powers—continues to hinder any substantial progress.

The Rome Statute (1998) and UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19 (2012) remain the primary legal frameworks that support the ICC's jurisdiction, while the case of Prosecutor v. Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09) illustrates the challenges in enforcing ICC warrants without state cooperation. Furthermore, Situation in Palestine (ICC, 2021–present) continues to demonstrate the gap between legal mandates and political will. Looking forward, the ICC’s ability to deliver justice will depend on whether international powers can overcome their geopolitical interests and prioritize accountability. The Court must contend with the twin challenges of legal complexity and political pressure to bring perpetrators to justice. Until then, its role in the Israel-Palestine conflict remains largely symbolic.[7]

Conclusion
The Israel-Palestine conflict highlights the profound tension between international law and political will, especially in the context of the International Criminal Court. While the ICC has the legal authority to investigate and prosecute war crimes in Palestinian territories, political resistance from powerful states, particularly Israel and its allies, continues to undermine its efforts. Despite the Court’s formal recognition of jurisdiction, the selective application of justice—exemplified by its focus on African nations while sidestepping cases involving Western powers—has led to accusations of bias and double standards.

The lack of cooperation from key states, especially Israel, and the political realities surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict, render the ICC largely ineffective in holding perpetrators accountable. The 2023–2024 escalation in Gaza and the continued expansion of Israeli settlements further underscore the urgency for international legal action. However, until the international community overcomes its geopolitical divides and commits to impartial justice, the ICC will struggle to deliver meaningful results.

Ultimately, the ICC's challenges in Palestine illustrate a larger issue within international law: while legal frameworks exist to address war crimes and human rights violations, the absence of political will and state cooperation often stifles their enforcement. The road ahead for the ICC will require overcoming these obstacles, ensuring that justice is not just an ideal but a reality for the victims of international crimes, regardless of political influence.

End Notes:

• https://www.cartercenter.org/documents/1435.pdf
• https://opiniojuris.org/2024/10/11/delays-interference-and-espionage-the-iccs-struggle-with-arrest-warrants-in-the-situation-in-the-state-of-palestine/
• https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/pre-trial-chamber-i-decides-court-may-exercise-its-criminal-jurisdiction-situation-palestine
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375999421_The_Political_and_Legal_Underpinnings_of_the_Palestine-Israel_Conflict
• https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/justice-on-trial-the-icc-israel-and-the-politics-of-accountability
• https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/israel-palestine-conflict-recent-developments-and-statements/
• https://thecsrjournal.in/israeli-palestinian-conflict-recent-developments-steps/