Notably, as a bilateral ‘special agreement’ concluded under the ambit of the safeguards provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) and the law of occupation, the Oslo Accords cannot be interpreted or applied in contravention of international law.12 As such their terms are not pertinent to the resolution of the issue under consideration, namely the Chamber’s determination of its jurisdicti. [...] In light of ICC practice, this Chamber must ensure that the Prosecutor consistently complies with its instructions, especially when his ‘actions have the potential to affect the administration of justice and the integrity of the [proceedings before its determination] pursuant to article 58 of the Statute has even been made.’27 This is in line with the Chamber’s indispensable role in ‘scrutinizing. [...] Most importantly, the Oslo Accords constitute a ‘special agreement’ within the meaning of the GC IV.63 As the drafters of these Conventions foresaw the risks of the conclusion of an agreement between the occupied State and the Occupying Power, Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the GC IV entail that ‘special agreements’ cannot deprive or deny ‘protected persons’ of their rights under the Geneva Conventions.6. [...] The Oslo Accords do not bar or limit the Court from exercising its jurisdiction, including over Israeli nationals, for crimes within its jurisdiction committed on the territory of the State of Palestine, nor do they form part of the Chamber’s determination on the Prosecutor’s application for the issuance of warrants of arrest. [...] The rules of the Rome Statute cannot be rewritten by the terms of a bilateral agreement, especially those between an Occupying Power and the representatives of an occupied people, in such a manner inconsistent with the fundamental tenets and purposes of the establishment of the Court, as well as, with the protected Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
- Pages
- 12
- Published in
- Palestine, State of
Table of Contents
- I. INTRODUCTION 3
- II. OBSERVATIONS 5
- A. The United Kingdom Misrepresents the Chamber’s Jurisdiction Decision 5
- B. The Prosecutor’s Noncompliance with the Chamber’s Practice and Instructions 6
- C. Article 58 ex parte Proceedings 7
- D. Article 19(1) Statutory Duty 9
- E. The Oslo Accords do not Bar or Limit the Exercise of the Court’s Jurisdiction 9
- III. CONCLUSION 12