Gaza / Israel: the ICC arrest warrants against the Prime Minister and (former) Defense Minister of Israel and against a Hamas leader. Scope and prospects.

Nicolas Boeglin, Professor of Public International Law, School of Law, University of Costa Rica (UCR). Contact: nboeglin(a)gmail.com.

Author’s note: a slightly expanded French version of this text is also available in this link.

29. In May, the Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel, through its “total siege”, had weaponized the withholding of vital goods, including humanitarian assistance, for strategic and political gain, constituting collective punishment and reprisal against the civilian population, and thus direct violations of international humanitarian law. According to the Commission of Inquiry, Israel’s practice of starvation as a method of warfare would affect the entire population of Gaza for decades, with particularly negative consequences for children. In its requests for arrest warrants, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court concluded that, through its total siege of Gaza and arbitrary restrictions on the transfer of essential supplies, as well as attacks on civilians, obstruction of aid and attacks on humanitarian workers and the killing of humanitarian personnel, Israel had used criminal means to achieve its military objectives and collective punishment as part of a common plan. These included intentionally causing death, starvation, severe suffering and serious injury, starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally directing attacks against civilians.

Excerpt from the United Nations report A/79/363 (see link) referenced in a press release on November 14, 2024, titled “UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide, including use of starvation as a weapon of war” (see link) scarcely mentioned in international media outlets.

Introduction

On November 21, 2024, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that it had confirmed and issued arrest warrants for two senior Israeli leaders and a head of Hamas’ military wing in Gaza.

More precisely, it is about arrest warrants against the current Prime Minister and Defense Minister of Israel until a few weeks ago (see press release official ICC press release in French and English).

In its first communiqué in relation to Israeli authorities, it reads that the judges of the ICC considered that:

With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu, born on 21 October 1949, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr Gallant, born on 8 November 1958, Minister of Defence of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.

In its second communiqué concerning the Hamas military chief, it reads that for the ICC,

The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that MrDeif, born in 1965, the highest commander of the military wing of Hamas (known as the al-Qassam Brigades) at the time of the alleged conduct, is responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder; extermination; torture; and rape and other form of sexual violence; as well as the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, torture,; taking hostages; outrages upon personal dignity; and rape and other form of sexual violence.The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Deif bears criminal responsibility for the aforementioned crimes for (i) having committed the acts jointly and through others and (ii) having ordered or induced the commission of the crimes, and (iii) for his failure to exercise proper control over forces under his effective command and control.

The statement made by the same ICC Prosecutor on November 21 also deserves mention (see text), in which he points out that:

As I emphasised in May, these applications were made following an independent investigation, and on the basis of objective, verifiable evidence vetted through a forensic process. I appeal to all States Parties to live up to their commitment to the Rome Statute by respecting and complying with these judicial orders. We count on their cooperation in this situation, as with all other situations under the Court’s jurisdiction. We also welcome collaboration with non-States Parties in working towards accountability and upholding international law.

In some circles it is expected that much more than two people in Israel will be brought before the international criminal justice system in The Hague. This recent interview from an Israeli media outlet (Magazine+972,in its November 26 issue), reads that for one of the legal representatives of the Palestinian victims before the ICC,

Additional indictments are not just possible — they are probable. The ICC’s jurisdiction covers crimes committed since 2014, a period that encompasses a wide range of documented violations, including extrajudicial killings, illegal settlements, and the blockade of Gaza. These are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of systemic oppression.

Some reactions

As has become customary, Israel’s highest authorities found nothing better than to accuse the three ICC judges who made this decision of “anti-Semitism” (see note from the TimesofIsrael). These statements by Israeli leaders are not new and were heard in this 2024 with regard to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (see note of the TimesofIsrael of January 26), to the UN General Assembly, to the Human Rights Council, to the UN Secretary General, to UN Human Rights Rapporteurs and Experts, etc…. This type of declarations may explain the origin of the threats against two members of the ICC denounced this November 28th by its President in an official communiqué (see text in French and in English).

For its part, an NGO like Amnesty International expressed its deep satisfaction with this decision, while demanding that all States Parties to the Rome Statute of 1998, which created the ICC, comply from now on with all their obligations and cooperate fully with the ICC (see press release). In the same vein, Human Rights Watch (see communiqué). It should be noted that early on, as early as October 23, 2023, Amnesty International researchers had detected and documented Israel’s commission of war crimes in Gaza (see their communiqué at the time).

Unintended consequence or not of this ICC decision in Israel, reports concerning the irresponsibility of its Prime Minister prior to the Hamas-perpetrated attack of October 7, 2023 have been detailed in major Israeli newspapers (see for example this interview). Last Sunday, November 24, the highest Israeli authorities lashed out against an Israeli newspaper with a highly critical editorial line such as Haaretz (see note from Haaretz and note from ElPais in Spain).

Of some official reactions in the American hemisphere

As expected, as soon as the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision was made public, the White House Office in the United States issued a statement discrediting the ICC for this decision (see official statement of the same November 21).

In Latin America, some States welcomed the ICC decision with great satisfaction: the official communiqué issued by the diplomatic apparatus of Chile deserves mention, the text reading as follows:

November 21, 2024

The Government of Chile has taken cognizance of the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants against the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu; the former Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant, and against the commander of Hamas, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Israel and Palestine, in the framework of the current conflict.
Chile recalls that in January 2024 it referred, together with Mexico, the situation of Palestine to the ICC for investigation of crimes committed in both Palestine and Israel, by nationals of both States.

Chile urgently calls on the parties to the conflict to put an end to the grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights committed against civilians, which have particularly affected the Palestinian population in Gaza, especially innocent women and children.
Finally, the Government of Chile supports the work of the International Criminal Court and hopes that all States will cooperate with its investigation and decisions, which are binding, so that these serious crimes do not go unpunished.
Others such as Argentina saw fit to reject it through a simple tweet from its highest authority (see press release).

Note that Paraguay’s diplomatic establishment – oblivious to the ICC decision, as was Argentina’s – the day before issued a communiqué announcing steps with the Israeli authorities to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (see communiqué of November 20).

Apart from reading the official communiqué issued by Chile or that of Colombia contained in this note press release, an additional exercise is suggested: their respective contents can be compared to the strange content of the official communiqué issued by Costa Rica (Note 1). Possibly written with some haste, without going through some kind of style review, this communiqué contains a serious error, by erroneously stating that:

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established after World War II on the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which clearly established for the first time criminal responsibility for international crimes.

Will the date of adoption of the Rome Statute in July 1998 be ignored in the press service of the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

The other phrase according to which the ICC “studies situations referred by States parties or by the UN Security Council” is also incomplete and totally erroneous as applied specifically to the case of Israeli and Hamas leaders. As a professor of public international law, we invite those in charge of the communication department of this ministry (and its head) to read articles 13 and 15 of the 1998 Rome Statute, the full English version of which is available in this link. Except for an error on our part, no other official communication from a State has been devoted to a brief (and incomplete) attempt to explain the origin and functioning of the ICC and to mention other international tribunals.

Finally, from a formal point of view, there is a way to express the content of the following sentence in a much more appropriate way, omitting a style and at the end an “etc” that seem to correspond to generalities found in some dictionary or digital encyclopedia:

The Court focuses on victims, and before the Court all victims have the same right to justice, be they from any country, ethnic group, religion, etc..

The comparison of the text circulated by Costa Rica can be made not only with the text circulated by the diplomatic apparatus of Chile, but also extended to the communiqué of South Africa (see text), to that of France (which “prend acte” of this ICC decision – see text).

Also worthy of mention is the communiqué from a meeting of G7 members in Italy released this November 26 (see communiqué), which reads – in this case omitting any reference to the ICC at the probable insistence of the United States – that:

In exercising its right to defend itself, Israel must fully comply with its obligations under international law in all circumstances, including International Humanitarian Law. We reiterate our commitment to International Humanitarian Law and will comply with our respective obligations

Whether in the framework of other regional forums, such as the hemispheric regional framework, the Latin American and Caribbean States will be able to adopt a much more precise and forceful joint communiqué, for example in the framework of CELAC, which Colombia will chair in a few days’ time, remains to be seen.

Note that Costa Rica has been a State Party to the Rome Statute since June 2001 and has chaired the Assembly of States Parties on several occasions. In addition, it has had a judge of its nationality at the ICC for several years, who recently joined an ICC Chamber that formally condemned Mongolia for not having arrested the President of Russia when he was on its territory, who was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the ICC in March 2023 (see decision of October 24, 2024).

Going through official communiqués in this 2024 adopted in relation to the crisis in Gaza and the ICC, in the case of Mexico a January 2024 communiqué informing about its management with Chile before the ICC (see comunicado official) could well have served as an inspiration … for a similar approach by Costa Rica, which has “emphasized” for not activating any mechanism since the afternoon/evening of October 7, 2023, in order to halt Israel’s destructive momentum in Gaza. Note that this November 29, it was indicated that Costa Rica, together with Chile, Spain, France, Luxembourg and Mexico, submitted a joint urgent request (“referral”) regarding the situation of women in Afghanistan (see document dated November 28 submitted to the ICC and official communiqué from Chile). In his November 29 statement welcoming this joint request, the Prosecutor notes that his office has been investigating the situation since 2017 (see statement).

United States and legislation ready to sanction the ICC

With specific reference to the United States, it is worth recalling this initiative of the US Congress of May 7, 2024, which aims to sanction the ICC if it ever ventures to order an investigation or prosecution of the political and military leaders of US allies. This initiative, passed in June 2024 (see note from TheGuardian), is justified, according to the preamble,

“To impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies “ Author’s free translation of ‘To impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies ’.

Israel is not mentioned in this text, but it is interesting to note that the initiative was presented on May 7, 2024, just a few weeks before the ICC Prosecutor publicly requested arrest warrants for two Israeli and three Hamas leaders on May 20. It should be noted that the list of sponsors of this unusual initiative of the US Congress includes the names of some of those close to the new US president-elect on November 5 and whom he has decided to appoint to important positions in his future administration.

Argentina, Israel’s new reinforcement in Latin America.

In the case of Argentina, it is notorious that since a few months ago it has been participating in the (extremely modest) pro-Israeli coalition in the United Nations, replacing with its vote even the vote of the small Pacific islands (Fiji, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau) which have already decided not to support Israel in this 2024: see in this regard the vote of a resolution in the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Golan Heights (Syrian territory occupied by Israel) with 152 votes in favor and 5 against (Argentina, United States, Israel, Papua New Guinea and Tonga) to which this UN communiqué of November 20, 2024.

The Argentina-Paraguay duo had also “stood out” last November 14 in New York, when the Third Committee voted its traditional resolution on the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people (see UN press release, overlooked in the American media…) with a rarely reached majority of 170 votes in favor, 9 abstentions and 6 votes against: Argentina, United States, Hungary, Israel, Paraguay, Nauru and Czech Republic.

From Latin America, Guatemala stood out among the votes in favor of this precise resolution in 2024, Panama opting to abstain (when it had voted in favor in 2023), while Argentina and Paraguay seem to replace the small Pacific Island States that in 2023 accompanied Israel and the United States, voting against this same resolution (Note 2).

A brief review of the ICC decision of November 21

The ICC Prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants had been patiently awaited since May 20, 2024: that was the date on which the ICC Prosecutor formally announced that he had requested them against three Hamas leaders and the two aforementioned Israeli authorities (see link to announcement in French and in English). The United States expressed its categorical opposition to the Prosecutor’s announcement on May 20 (see communiqué from the State Department).

Regarding this matter, we had the opportunity to analyze the scope of the ICC Prosecutor’s announcement (see our brief note on the same subject of May 20) as well as, a few months later, the steps taken by several Latin American States before the ICC to submit the request in August 2024: see our note in this regard entitled ”Latin America in the face of the drama in Gaza: regarding the observations sent by Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Contrary to other regions of the world, this group of States confirmed Latin America as a bastion of international criminal justice and the fight against rampant impunity, particularly when it comes to exactions committed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

At the end of August, the ICC Prosecutor had the opportunity to reiterate the urgency of issuing these arrest warrants in a statement totally overlooked in the press media: see in this regard our note entitled “Gaza / Israel: ICC Prosecutor reaffirms urgency of arrest warrants“.

It is worth noting that at the end of May 2024, investigative journalists in Israel published a long report on the eavesdropping system to which the Israeli secret services had been subjecting ICC computers and personnel for many years: see article, entitled “Surveillance and intefrerence: Israel’s covert war on ICC exposed”, the full reading of which is recommended.

Israeli assassinations explaining no arrest warrants for the remaining Hamas leaders , amid a long wait

With Israel having proceeded with the assassination of the other Hamas leaders mentioned in the ICC Prosecutor’s request in its announcement of 20 May, the Pre-Trial Chamber extended the arrest warrants for the two living Israeli officials and for a Hamas leader who is thought to have escaped an assassination attempt by Israeli military forces. As his death has not been confirmed, the ICC has no way to exclude him from its request. Instead, see the ICC’s September 9 decision to suspend the arrest warrant in the specific case of Palestinian Hamas leader Ismael Hanyeh, who was assassinated by Israel on July 31 in Tehran after attending the inauguration of Iran’s new president (see text).

The long wait since May 20, 2024 was due in part to demarches initiated by the United Kingdom at the end of June, procedurally opening up a period of time for legal opinions to be submitted by States, non-governmental organizations and individuals to the three ICC judges. Significantly, following the results of the UK elections on July 4, the new UK authorities opted to suspend the delaying tactics of their predecessors, possibly at the request of Israel (and its staunch US ally): see this article in The Guardian.

As part of a press campaign to discredit the ICC and its Prosecutor, sponsored by influential pro-Israel circles in the United States and Europe, ICC judges were also subjected to all kinds of diplomatic pressure from some of the major donor states not to issue any arrest warrants for Israeli leaders.

According to some experts, the diplomatic pressures exerted by the United States went even further, requesting that, should a decision be made, it should not be made public before November 5, 2024, the date of the U.S. elections. As you read.

We had the opportunity to explain with renowned university colleagues these and other aspects in a forum held by the Graduate Program in Sociology at the University of Costa Rica (UCR) in early July 2024 (see flyer and video of the activity) entitled precisely: “Gaza / Israel: from the information siege to the encirclement of international justice”.

The insanity of Israel’s so-called “war” in Gaza

The latest UN report on the situation in Gaza (see report as of November 19) gives an account of the senselessness of Israeli military action in Gaza, with nearly 44,000 identified fatalities ( and more than 100,000 injured), reading that:

“Between the afternoons of 12 and 19 November, according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza, 307 Palestinians were killed and 932 were injured. Between 7 October 2023 and 19 November 2024, at least 43,972 Palestinians were killed and 104,008 were injured, according to MoH in Gaza.

Between the afternoons of 12 and 19 November, three Israeli soldiers were killed in Gaza, according to the Israeli military. Between 7 October 2023 and 19 November 2024, according to the Israeli military and official Israeli sources cited in the media, more than 1,576 Israelis and foreign nationals were killed, the majority on 7 October 2023 and its immediate aftermath. The figure includes 376 soldiers killed in Gaza or along the border in Israel since the beginning of the ground operation. In addition, 2,440 Israeli soldiers were reported injured since the beginning of the ground operation“.

As is well known, despite very poor coverage in the mainstream media, in October 2024 the report A/79/384 was presented to the United Nations General Assembly (see link), entitled ‘Genocide as colonial suppression’ by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967: its full reading is recommended, in analyzing and detailing the documented genocidal intent of the current Israeli authorities in Gaza (read in particular paragraphs 11-23 and paragraphs 42-48, as well as 68-82).

Here is a note from the United Nations press service of October 30, 2024, where you can listen to its presentation in Spanish; our esteemed readers can verify for themselves whether this press release and the report it refers to were mentioned in the main press media in Costa Rica. Or if, as it usually happens, in Costa Rica and in other latitudes, the international news agencies and the international press media ignored this report.

The author of this report then went to Canada on November 3 (see press release), questioning Canadian society and authorities about the unspeakable drama in Gaza, with several interviews with various media (see one of them).

Gaza / Israel
Photo of the bombing of Gaza on November 13, 2024 in the area of Al-Mawasi: you can see the impact caused on the ground due to the use of powerful explosive devices that Israel repeatedly uses when bombing camps for displaced persons and refugees in Gaza. Photo extracted from article press release entitled “ ‘I don’t care who’s president there. I just want may kids to survive in Gaza’ ”, Magazine+972 (Israel), November 14, 2024 issue.
Last November 8, 2024, the United Nations made public another report on the period from November 1, 2023 to April 30, 2024 (see link) in which it can be read (page 6) that:

The monitoring and verification of grave violations remained extremely challenging, including owing to access constraints, a high level of insecurity, and threats and direct attacks also on United Nations personnel, monitors and humanitarian actors. Nevertheless, verification work continued, with the number of killings verified by OHCHR by 2 September 2024 standing at 8,119 Palestinians in Gaza, including 2,036 women and 3,588 children (1,865 boys and 1,723 girls). Of these verified figures, 7,607 were killed in residential buildings or similar housing, out of which 44 per cent were children, 26 per cent women and 30 per cent men. 

Besides the recommendations addressed to the Israeli authorities (pp. 29-30), the final recommendations state that the Member States of the United Nations should also take certain measures (page 31):

“72. The High Commissioner calls on Member States of the United Nations to: 

a. Consistent with their obligations under international law, assess arms sales or transfers and provision of military, logistical or financial support to a party to the conflict, with a view to cessation of such support to the extent it implicates a real risk of facilitating commission of serious violations of international law; 

b. Support the work of the International Criminal Court in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory; exercise universal jurisdiction to try crimes under international law in national courts, consistent with international standards; and comply with extradition requests pertaining to suspects of such crimes to countries where they would face a fair trial;”.

The report of a recently released UN Commission of Inquiry A/79/363 (see link) deserves mention: as does its scarce dissemination in the international press media, as has become customary since October 7, 2023 when it comes to reports describing the unspeakable drama to which Israel subjects the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza.

On November 14, 2024, an appearance of a surgeon who operated on civilians in Gaza before a British Parliamentary committee, made the previous day, was also broadcast (see video), in which this professional details the deliberate intention to cause the greatest harm to the civilian population, particularly children, on the part of Israel.

The ICC’s message: a clear signal to States and other judges

Since November 21, the international community has been witnessing the laying of a second important milestone for the Palestinian victims and for international criminal justice, as well as for the fight against the impunity to which the Israeli authorities have been accustomed for many years now, confident in the protective mantle of their unconditional American ally.

In February 2021, a first stepping stone had been laid, in a little-publicized and little-analyzed ICC decision declaring itself perfectly empowered, from a legal point of view, to examine the situation in the entire Palestinian territory, without exception of any kind: see our note on the subject published in the International Human Rights Network (IHRN) and entitled ‘International Criminal Court (ICC)/Palestine: the way is clear for international criminal justice’. When an investigation was formally opened by the Office of the Prosecutor a few weeks later, the United States felt compelled to express its categorical rejection (see communiqué from the State Department on March 3, 2021).

Indeed, this official announcement by the ICC on November 21 was preceded 24 hours earlier by the umpteenth attempt by the United States in the Security Council (Note 3), when its delegation chose to exercise its veto alone to protect Israel in Gaza, against 14 votes in favor of the other Member States: this is the fourth solitary veto by the United States since October 7, 2023 in the Security Council.

The arrest warrant issued last November 21 by the ICC now requires Member States to the Rome Statute (see official status of signatures and ratifications) to surrender both Israeli leaders if they are on their territory, which will significantly hinder their movements abroad. Same possibility also extends to the Hamas leader mentioned above (and who is considered to be still alive, either somewhere in Gaza or outside Gaza).

The arrest warrant issued last November 21 by the ICC now requires Member States to the Rome Statute (see official status of signatures and ratifications) to surrender both Israeli leaders if they are on their territory, which will significantly hinder their movements abroad. Same possibility also extends to the Hamas leader mentioned above (and who is considered to be still alive, either somewhere in Gaza or outside Gaza).

For South Africa, this decision of the ICC judges could pave the way for a new urgent request for indication of provisional measures in the South Africa v. Israel case before another international court based in The Hague: the ICJ (see the text of its request – in English – for the proceedings of December 29, 2023). In its initial request, we read (point 4) a description of the Israeli action confirmed since then (December 2023) by the facts and the dramatic reality on the ground:

4. The facts relied on by South Africa in this application and to be further developed in these proceedings establish that — against a background of apartheid, expulsion, ethnic cleansing, annexation, occupation, discrimination, and the ongoing denial of the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination — Israel, since 7 October 2023 in particular, has failed to prevent genocide and has failed to prosecute the direct and public incitement to genocide. More gravely still, Israel has engaged in, is engaging in and risks further engaging in genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Those acts include killing them, causing them serious mental and bodily harm and deliberately inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group. Repeated statements by Israeli State representatives, including at the highest levels, by the Israeli President, Prime Minister, and Minister of Defence express genocidal intent. That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard inter alia to Israel’s failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine.

These arrest warrants also send a clear signal to various States and political sectors that considered international criminal justice to be biased and oriented, particularly on the African continent. At the same time, it is also a challenge to certain States which, for one reason or another, see fit to continue doing business as usual with Israel, particularly in the arms trade and in many other highly strategic areas (supply of oil in particular, but also of the electronic components needed for the information and communication systems used by the Israeli army).

Finally, it is possible that national judges who were reluctant to make decisions may now find an additional reason, which was missing from the record until November 20, to rule in favor of Palestinian victims, in accordance with the general obligation of States to prevent the crime of genocide and war crimes. It should be recalled that many Israeli soldiers who display on social networks their “trophies” and their war crimes in Gaza have another passport in addition to the Israeli one and that legal actions against them have been initiated in some European states (Note 4).

By way of conclusion: returning to Costa Rica for a moment

As a professor of public international law (often required to explain to his students the meaning and type of message a State intends to send when drafting a press release by playing with the richness and nuances offered by language in order to modulate and calibrate the signal it wants to send to other States), it is more than surprising how little care the Costa Rican diplomatic apparatus takes when drafting and disseminating a press release as it did in this precise case.

Beyond the rushed manner in which press releases are sometimes prepared on occasion, even proceeding to invoke non-existent legal principles (Note 5), these ICC arrest warrants also send an unmistakable signal to States like Costa Rica that, for some reason, consider it appropriate to negotiate bilateral agreements with the current Israeli authorities and … announce them in the middle of a world summit: during the recent COP29 held in Baku, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica surprised many by announcing the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Israel on environmental matters (see official communication from its environmental authorities on November 13 and cofficial communication from its counterparts in Israel). In the meantime, Costa Rica obtained the undignified award of “Fossil of the Day” granted by outraged international environmental organizations (see article published in the weekly Ojoalclima, the final part of which shows the Costa Rican authorities in their sudden refusal to give explanations).

On another front, Costa Rica has been negotiating a free trade agreement with Israel for several years (see official communiqué from the authorities in charge of foreign trade of October 2024) and does not seem to have considered it opportune or prudent to suspend them sine die.

Notes

Note 1: Costa Rica’s official communiqué released on November 22 at 12:59 pm (see official link) reads as follows;

Costa Rica respects the judicial independence of the International Criminal Court and trusts its integrity and that of its officials

San José, November 22, 2024. Costa Rica participates in multilateral organizations of nations, including the international justice system, which is an essential part of them. .

We have historically supported the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established after World War II on the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which clearly established criminal responsibility for international crimes for the first time.

The ICC, composed of judges elected by the international community, studies situations referred by States Parties or by the UN Security Council, investigates possible international crimes (war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and aggression) and then, if formal requirements are met and it finds that international crimes are likely to have been committed, issues arrest warrants, which only indicate that there will be judicial proceedings against possible perpetrators.

There is a presumption of innocence, due process, and full judicial guarantees.

The Court focuses on victims, and before the Court all victims have the same right to justice, be they from any country, ethnic group, religion, etc..

Costa Rica respects the judicial independence of the Criminal Court and does not consider it appropriate to comment on its decisions.

We have confidence in its magistrates and in the integrity of the institution and its officials.

Institutional Communication

458-2024 CR judicial independence ICC

Friday, November 22, 2024”

Note 2: In the vote on this same resolution in 2023, the following is stated in this United Nations press release dated November 10, 2023: “On a point of order, Egypt’s delegate asked who requested the vote, to which the Chair responded that it was Israel. The resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 5 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and the United States), with 9 abstentions (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Guatemala, Kiribati, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tongo, Tonga and Vanuatu)“.

Note 3: Read our brief note on the subject: BOEGLIN N., “Gaza / Israel: on the new solitary veto of the United States in the Security Council“, issue of November 20, 2024. Full text available here.

Note 4: Regarding an Israeli soldier holding a French passport. see this notefrom Le Monde of April 2024. Regarding two Belgian/Israeli soldiers,this note from JusticeInfo of October 2024 details these two cases before Belgian courts. It reads, “Il faut faire respecter le droit international pour forcer un cessez-le-feu et mettre fin à à l’impunité qui nourrit les crimes suivants. La justice belge doit faire sa part du travail, aux cotés de la justice internationale”. The United Kingdom for its part registers a hundred of its nationals in the ranks of the Israeli army sent to comabit in Gaza (see press release).

Note 5: On the occasion of the entry of special troops from Ecuador to the Embassy of Mexico in Quito on April 5, 2024, we had the opportunity to record the various official reactions of Latin American States and to point out the conceptual error, in our view serious, contained in the official press release prepared and disseminated by Costa Rica by stating that: “This is possibly the first time that States officially refer to ‘the territorial integrity of an embassy’: see BOEGLIN N. , “A propósito del anuncio por parte de México de suspender sus relaciones diplomáticas con Ecuador”, edition of April 6, 2024. Text available here.