Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been issued an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes. Reuters Yonhap News
Reactions from around the world were mixed when the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants on the 21st (local time) for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of committing various war crimes in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. there is.
While the United States, Israel’s largest supporter, strongly criticized the ICC’s issuance of warrants, many European countries respect ICC decisions and take the position that executing arrest warrants is the legal obligation of the 124 parties that signed the Rome Statute of the ICC. showed.
The United States, Israel’s closest ally and not a party to the ICC, strongly criticized the ICC’s decision to issue an arrest warrant. The White House National Security Council (NSC) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally rejects” the ICC decision.
U.S. President Joe Biden also said, “Israel and Hamas cannot be viewed as equals at all,” and added, “We will always stand with Israel to confront security threats to Israel.”
Previously, the United States was the only one to exercise its veto power on a resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip voted on by the UN Security Council the previous day, thereby nullifying it. This was the fourth time since the outbreak of war in October last year that the United States nullified a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
On the other hand, most European countries that have generally supported Israel showed that they respect the ICC decision. “This is not a political decision,” said Josep Borrell, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security. “All states, including all EU member states, all parties have an obligation to implement the court’s decision.”
The United Kingdom, which withdrew from the EU in 2020, also expressed support, saying it respects the independence of the ICC.
On May 30 (local time), residents are rushing to flee the Jabaliya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip after it was attacked by the Israeli military. AFP Yonhap News
Some European countries have stated that, as parties, they will comply with their obligations to enforce ICC arrest warrants. Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto said, “If Prime Minister Netanyahu and others enter Italy, we must arrest them,” adding, “This is not a political choice, but a legal obligation.”
Dutch Foreign Minister Kaspar Feldkamp also said he would comply with his obligation to execute the arrest warrant. British Foreign Minister David Lammy also made a statement last May, when he was an opposition party, to the effect that “If Prime Minister Netanyahu enters the UK after an ICC arrest warrant is issued, the UK has a legal obligation to arrest him.”
Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris evaluated the ICC decision as a “very meaningful measure” and expressed the need for active cooperation.
On the 21st (local time), refugees in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, are carrying the bodies of a 7-year-old, 5-year-old, and 4-year-old siblings who died in an Israeli military airstrike to hold a funeral. On this day, the cumulative death toll in Gaza exceeded 44,000 since the start of the war. AP Yonhap News
South Africa, which previously filed a complaint against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide, released a statement welcoming the move as “an important step forward in achieving justice for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Palestine.” did it Countries such as Turkmenistan and Jordan also expressed their welcome.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he would comply with the ICC’s rules and rulings, saying, “It is very important that everyone follows international law.”
On the other hand, among the parties to the Rome Statute, Argentina and Hungary, where far-right governments are in power, criticized the ICC decision.
France, which is also a party to the Rome Statute, reserved its position. When asked whether Prime Minister Netanyahu would be arrested if he enters France, a French Foreign Ministry spokesperson declined to express his position, saying, “It is a legally complex issue, so we will not comment today.”
Although many countries that are parties to the Rome Statute acknowledge that it is their legal obligation to execute arrest warrants when Prime Minister Netanyahu or former Minister Gallant enters their country, it is currently unclear whether they will actually execute them.
The Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998 and came into effect in 2002, is an international treaty that became the legal basis for the establishment of the ICC, and 124 countries, including Korea, have joined as parties.
When the ICC was established, many countries joined, but the United States and Israel withdrew in 2002, Sudan withdrew in 2008, and Russia withdrew in 2016. Ukraine, which is at war with Russia, signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but continued to postpone ratification by parliament. However, when the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, it ratified it and became a party to it last August.
**Considering the polarized reactions to the ICC warrants from countries like the United States and various European nations, does this situation highlight a wider issue of selective application of international law based on geopolitical interests?**
## World Today News: Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant – An International Debate
**Introduction**:
Welcome to World Today News. Today we’re discussing the recent issuance of arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. This decision has sparked international debate, raising complex questions about international law, national sovereignty, and the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Joining us today are two experts to share their perspectives:
* **Professor Sarah Cohen:** an international law scholar specializing in ICC jurisprudence.
* **Mr. David Ben-Ami:** a Middle East policy analyst with expertise in Israeli politics.
Welcome to both of you.
**Section 1: The ICC Decision and International Law**
* **Professor Cohen**, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for sitting heads of state before. How significant is this particular decision within the context of international law and the ICC’s mandate?
* **Mr. Ben-Ami**, how do you think this decision will be perceived within Israel, and what are the potential political ramifications?
* **Open Discussion:**
* Do you believe the ICC has the authority to issue warrants against leaders of nations that are not party to the Rome Statute?
* What are the potential implications of this decision for future international justice efforts?
**Section 2: The Geopolitical Fallout**
* **Mr. Ben-Ami**, the United States has expressed strong criticism of the ICC’s decision. How do you think this divergence between the US and the ICC will play out on the international stage?
* **Professor Cohen**, several European countries have indicated their willingness to uphold the ICC warrants. How might this create tension within the international community and impact broader diplomatic relations?
* **Open Discussion:**
* Do you see this as a clear instance of double standards being applied by the international community? Why or why not?
* What are the potential consequences of states choosing to selectively uphold or ignore ICC rulings?
**Section 3: Justice and Accountability in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict**
* **Professor Cohen**, what legal arguments might be used to defend Netanyahu and Gallant against these accusations?
* **Mr. Ben-Ami**, how do you think the Palestinian Authority and other stakeholders in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will react to this decision?
* **Open Discussion:**
* Can the ICC’s decision contribute to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or will it further exacerbate tensions?
* What role should accountability play in pursuing justice in such a complex and protracted conflict?
**Conclusion**:
The ICC warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant have undoubtedly opened up a Pandora’s Box of legal, political and ethical questions.
We thank our guests for sharing their valuable insights on this complex issue. As the international community grapples with the ramifications of this decision, World Today News will continue to provide insightful coverage and analysis.
We encourage our viewers to continue the conversation online and share their thoughts on this important topic.
