Latest in International Criminal Court (ICC)
The ICC prosecutor’s determination of jurisdiction relies on a controversial and legally problematic recognition of Palestinian statehood.
The Office of the Attorney General for the state of Israel released a detailed memorandum to explain why the International Criminal Court (ICC) has no jurisdiction over Palestine. The memo argues that Palestine has failed to meet the necessary precondition of possessing criminal jurisdiction over its territory since a sovereign Palestinian state does not exist at this time. The memo is available here and below.
The International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber has released its decision in the appeal of Omar al-Bashir, finding in a split ruling that Jordan should have arrested al-Bashir during his visit to the country in 2017 but that Jordan should not be referred to the United Nations for sanction over its failure to do so.
On April 4, the United States revoked the visa of International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda over her investigation of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The ICC recently rejected that request, though the ban still presumably remains in place and marks an escalation in tensions between the Trump administration and the ICC.
On Friday, a panel of three International Criminal Court judges rejected the request of the court's Prosecutor to investigate "the situation" in Afghanistan, including alleged war crimes committed by the U.S. military and CIA.
On April 8, the Trump administration designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A few days earlier, the administration had made good on its threat to impose sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) involved in the examination of U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Israeli actions in other contexts. As part of this effort, it revoked the U.S. visa of Fatou Bensouda, the ICC’s chief prosecutor.
President Donald Trump’s Sept. 25 speech to the U.N. General Assembly surprised few with its condemnation and dismissal of international institutions—from the World Trade Organization, to the U.N. Human Rights Council, to the International Criminal Court.
I argued Tuesday that, while John Bolton’s speech on the International Criminal Court (ICC) was designed to be maximally offensive to the court and its supporters, the actual policy steps he suggested to counter the court were largely hollow. I also suggested that Bolton’s speech might actually bolster the court’s sagging legitimacy.
In his first major speech since becoming national security adviser, John Bolton yesterday returned to one of his most enduring themes: the dangers of the International Criminal Court and, more broadly, runaway and unaccountable “global governance.”
In his speech to the Federalist Society on Monday, national security adviser John Bolton fired a broadside at the International Criminal Court, which he called “ineffective,” “unaccountable,” “deeply flawed” and “outright dangerous.” He said the ICC unacceptably threatens American sovereignty and U.S. national-security interests. He criticized the ICC prosecutor’s request to start an investigation of U.S.