ICC Prosecutor’s application for arrest warrant against Israeli leaders: The war crime of starvation and its contextual element

On 20 Could 2024, the ICC Prosecutor requested arrest warrants in opposition to leaders of each Hamas and Israel. The important thing crime charged in opposition to the Israeli leaders, Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister) and Yoav Gallant (the Minister of Defence), is the conflict crime of hunger of civilians as a way of warfare. This crime raises quite a few points, together with in relation to its intentional aspect, which has already been mentioned elsewhere (right here and right here). This submit focusses as a substitute on the contextual aspect of that conflict crime, particularly that it will need to have been dedicated ‘within the context of and related to’ an armed battle.

The principle subject considerations the character of that armed battle. The conflict crime of hunger as a way of warfare is just relevant to the continuing armed battle in Gaza if that battle is certified as a global armed battle (IAC). Though that conflict crime is included within the lists of conflict crimes beneath the ICC jurisdiction for each worldwide and non-international armed conflicts (NIAC), the State of Palestine has not (but) ratified the 2019 amendments that added this crime to the listing of conflict crimes relevant in NIACs. In his software for arrest warrants, the ICC prosecutor asserted that each one ‘the conflict crimes alleged in these functions have been dedicated within the context of an IAC between Israel and Palestine, and a NIAC between Israel and Hamas operating in parallel’. All six conflict crimes charged in opposition to Hamas leaders are based mostly on ICC provisions relevant in NIACs. In contrast, among the many 4 conflict crimes charged in opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, three stem from provisions relevant in each NIACs and IACs. They embody the conflict crimes of deliberately directing assaults in opposition to civilians (8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i)), wilfully inflicting nice struggling or merciless therapy (8(2)(a)(iii), or 8(2)(c)(i)) and wilfully killing or homicide (8(2)(a)(i), or 8(2)(c)(i)). The fourth one, the conflict crime of hunger as a way of conflict, is grounded on a provision solely relevant in IACs (8(2)(b)(xxv)).

The continued hostilities between Israel and Hamas can absolutely be certified as a NIAC, because the twofold necessities for such battle, depth of the violence and group of the events, are met. Furthermore, Hamas shouldn’t be appearing on behalf of the State of Palestine, and it doesn’t appear {that a} international State is exercising ‘general management’ over it. It’s extra questionable whether or not the continuing armed battle in Gaza additionally triggers the appliance of the legislation of IAC, which would supply a authorized foundation for the prosecution of the conflict crime of hunger as a way of conflict beneath Artwork. 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute. That legislation of IAC could consequence from the existence of both an IAC (1) or a scenario of belligerent occupation (2). Allow us to research these two hypotheses individually.

Worldwide armed battle

Making use of the legislation of IAC to the Israeli operations in Gaza presents two major challenges: first, the existence of Palestinian statehood, and second, the sensible implementation of the so-called ‘double classification principle.’

The Palestinian statehood. To categorise the battle between Israel and Palestine as worldwide, Palestine would first should be thought-about as a State beneath worldwide legislation. On this brief submit, we won’t delve into the well-known controversies surrounding the definition of Palestine as a State. It’s ample to notice that, regardless of occasional contentions that Palestine lacks a sufficiently efficient authorities, convincing arguments exist to qualify Palestine as a full State. The truth is, a large number of States and worldwide organizations acknowledge and deal with Palestine as such. That is evidenced by its standing as non-member observer State on the United Nations since 2012 (see UN Basic Meeting Decision 67/19). Moreover, a UN Basic Meeting decision – adopted by a big majority of 143 States – has just lately urged ‘beneficial consideration’ for Palestine’s request to improve to full-membership standing. It may be – albeit extra controversially – argued that, even when Palestine doesn’t qualify for full statehood beneath worldwide legislation, just like its therapy for ICC jurisdiction, Palestine ought to be thought to be functionally equal to a State for the needs of making use of the legal guidelines of IAC to the Gaza battle. Certainly, the notion of ‘Powers’ referred to in frequent Article 2(3) of the 4 Geneva Conventions has generally been interpreted to incorporate quasi-State entities (or de facto States), akin to liberation actions (see right here, p. 566). Although their statehood stays disputed by a number of States, these entities could possibly be handled as State-like entities for the needs of Worldwide Humanitarian Legislation (IHL) primarily as a result of they’ve ample effectiveness to use and respect the most-developed norms of IHL relevant in IACs (see right here, §§ 176-185). Such a useful strategy aligns with the spirit of IHL, which frequently prioritizes effectiveness concerns. That is exemplified by many provisions governing the conduct of hostilities that include obligations of means and which are thus anchored in concerns of effectiveness, in addition to by the useful definition of occupation referred to under.

The ‘double classification principle’. This principle was elaborated by the ICRC and implicitly endorsed by the ICC Prosecutor in his software for arrest warrants, in addition to by the ICC judges in a number of judgments (see right here, § 726) and right here, at 1184). Below this conception, when a state makes use of drive in opposition to an armed group on the territory of one other state with out that state’s consent, this use of drive triggers an IAC between the 2 states, which overlaps with the NIAC between the intervening state and the armed group. In accordance with this strategy, the continuing hostilities in Gaza would indicate the existence of two simultaneous armed conflicts: an IAC between Israel and the State of Palestine, since Israel intervenes on the territory of the State of Palestine with out the latter state’s consent, and a NIAC between Hamas and Israel, because the navy operations are directed in opposition to a non-state armed group.

Regardless that this ‘double classification principle’ is supported by sure students (see right here, at 233) it has been criticized by others. One criticism pertains to the issue in figuring out which acts fall into one or the opposite kind of armed battle. Some students argue that each one the acts of the intervening state, on this case Israel, could be regulated by each the legislation of IAC and the legislation of NIAC (see right here, at 74). This may result in absurd penalties, notably that the Hamas troopers would then be each members of an armed group in relation to the NIAC and civilians in relation to the IAC. The cumulative software of each our bodies of legislation would imply that the Hamas fighters could be protected in opposition to any assault. Different students as a substitute confine the appliance of the legislation of NIAC to sure acts solely, akin to assaults solely impacting members of the armed group (see right here, at 815, and right here, at 842) offered that no injury is brought on to anybody or anything. That is additionally untenable in observe, as it’s hardly foreseeable that an assault will solely impression members of the armed group. These absurd or untenable penalties have led some authors to reject the double classification principle and to retain solely the qualification of NIAC (see right here, at 434-452).    

The principle downside with the ‘double classification principle’ is that it unrebuttably presumes from the shortage of consent of a State to navy operations carried out by one other State on its territory the existence of a hostile intent from the latter State in opposition to the previous one. In different phrases, the absence of consent from the Palestinian authority to the Israeli navy operation would essentially indicate that Israel is animated by a hostile intent in opposition to the State of Palestine with respect to any of its conduct. But, that hostile intent ought to be objectivized by materials acts. For instance, it’s clear that such intent doesn’t exist when the international navy operations solely encompass focusing on the armed group, akin to Hamas, and the navy operations are confined to the territory managed by that armed group. Nonetheless, the problem is way more unclear when civilians are impacted in such a fashion because the Gaza inhabitants is in the present day affected by the Israeli impediments to the supply of humanitarian help. This extends far past the scope of navy operations in opposition to Hamas within the strict sense. In such a case, the presumption of the existence of a hostile intent in opposition to Palestine on account of its lack of consent can hardly be rebutted, and the legislation of IAC could possibly be thought-about relevant to the Israeli conduct liable for the hunger of the civilian inhabitants.     

Occupation

Within the case of Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the nexus requirement between hunger and an IAC could be routinely fulfilled. Certainly, occupation is historically seen as an extension of an IAC. Regardless of the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza in 2005 and the continuing intense hostilities, the existence of such a scenario of occupation could possibly be argued on the premise of three different views. 

The primary view, supported by sure students, is grounded on a restrictive strategy to the top of occupation. In accordance with this conception, the occupation of Gaza that started in 1967 didn’t finish after the 7 October assaults, regardless of violent clashes between Israel and Hamas in that territory. This angle relies on the idea, notably shared by the UN and the ICRC, that Gaza remained an occupied territory – or, at the very least, that Israel was required to fulfil sure obligations as an occupying energy in Gaza –  after the 2005 Disengagement Plan. That is because of the management Israel retained over the Gaza Strip’s land and sea ‘borders’ in addition to its airspace. Since such distant management didn’t stop after the 7 October assaults, it has been argued that there was no purpose to think about that the occupation has ended. That is notably evidenced by Israel’s management over the supply of important provides to the Gazan inhabitants, akin to water, fuel, gas and electrical energy.

The second view adopts a broad strategy to each the top and starting of occupation. Below that view, the occupation may need ended with the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from Gaza in 2005. Nonetheless, the legislation of occupation would apply once more instantly after Israel re-entered Gaza. This aligns with the place held by some students that the foundations of the legislation of occupation develop into relevant as quickly because the invading forces come into contact with the international civilian inhabitants, offered that the invading state workouts ample management over people to have the ability to adjust to these guidelines. The bottom invasion of Gaza started with the Israeli offensive carried out on October 27 and remains to be ongoing. Moreover, the IHL guidelines on humanitarian reduction relevant in conditions of occupation are versatile sufficient to accommodate any diploma of management exercised by the invading state over people. These guidelines encompass prohibitions or obligations of means, which have to be complied with ‘[t]o the fullest extent of the means obtainable to’.  

The third view is based on a broad conception of the top of occupation and a restrictive strategy to the start of occupation. The latter conception, favoured by most courts, states, students in addition to the ICRC, asserts that occupation begins solely when the invading forces train efficient territorial management over the international territory. Accordingly, beneath that third view, the occupation may need ended after 2005, and resumed solely when and the place the Israeli armed forces exercised that efficient territorial management. This includes the bodily presence of the Israeli navy forces, the shortage of consent from the State of Palestine, and the flexibility of the Israeli forces to train authority over the territory in lieu of the native authorities, particularly Hamas. Even beneath such a restrictive strategy to the start of occupation, it could be argued {that a} scenario of occupation at the very least existed in some components of Gaza, particularly in Northern Gaza the place the civilian inhabitants already suffers from famine, for a decided time period, at the very least between January and Could 2024. Hamas was, certainly, complexly dismantled within the north of Gaza across the finish of December 2023, whereas hostilities resumed in that area in Could 2024. Though that interval lasted a number of months, Israel manifestly impeded the supply of humanitarian help to the Gazan inhabitants, which brought on the present and sure future famine.

The primary view doesn’t increase the problem of the statehood of Palestine. It doesn’t require that Gaza have to be a part of a international State, particularly the State of Palestine, since, as acknowledged by the Worldwide Court docket of Justice, the Israeli occupation that started in 1967 resulted from an IAC, between Israel on one hand and Jordan and Egypt alternatively. The problem of statehood of Palestine shouldn’t be related both with respect to the opposite two views, even when the claimed renewed occupation of Gaza by Israel can now not be thought-about the results of an IAC with Jordan and Egypt. Certainly, it’s broadly acknowledged that the unsettled sovereign standing of a territory, particularly that of Palestine, is irrelevant to the appliance of the legislation of occupation. As supported in authorized scholarship and by the ICRC, ‘it’s ample that the State whose armed forces have been established efficient management over the territory was not itself the rightful sovereign of [that territory]’.

***

Due to this fact, even when the State of Palestine shouldn’t be thought-about a State beneath worldwide legislation, or the ‘double classification principle’ is dismissed, and sure approaches to the notion of occupation aren’t adopted, the alleged conflict crime of hunger allegedly dedicated by Israeli leaders might nonetheless be argued to have occurred ‘within the context of and related to an IAC’, thereby falling beneath the ICC jurisdiction to prosecute such against the law.       

The editorial workforce notes that Professor Marko Milanovic was not concerned in reviewing or enhancing this submit.