The UN Security Council Resolution on Settlements Lays the Groundwork for Palestinian Lawfare

June 22 2017

In December, the U.S. declined to veto UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and therefore allowed it to pass. The resolution declares it illegal for Jews to build homes or live in territory acquired during the 1967 war. It could, argues Josh Halpern, provide a legal basis for litigation against Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC), thereby serving Mahmoud Abbas’s strategy of bringing international pressure to bear on the Jewish state:

As a political matter, the resolution’s legal language vindicates the Palestinian story of dispossession and could facilitate prosecutions of Israeli officials at the ICC. . . . [It] stabilizes the ground on which [the ICC prosecutor, Fatou] Bensouda might stand, were she to press for a “formal investigation” of Israel’s settlement activities. To move beyond the “preliminary examination” stage, the situation in the West Bank must satisfy the Rome Statute’s dual jurisdictional requirements of complementarity and gravity. The former restricts the ICC to cases where the state is “unwilling or unable” to investigate and punish violators, and here Israel’s settlement activities appear distinctly vulnerable. Not only do most settlements reflect official state policy, but Israel’s High Court of Justice has also deemed their status largely [outside its jurisdiction].

[But] the gravity requirement [is] where 2334 could have the greatest impact. To maximize the court’s legitimacy and limited resources, ICC prosecutors have so far focused primarily on physical brutalities like murder and sexual violence. . . . Resolution 2334 could alter this calculus. . . . [Its] renewed expression of “grave concern” about Israel’s “flagrant violation” of “international law” could prove decisive.

The approach certainly risks politicizing the court’s docket and straining its legitimacy, but it would also help defuse oft-cited concerns that the ICC has become an “African Criminal Court.” Signaling her sensitivity to this problem, the prosecutor recently promised to reshuffle her prosecutorial priorities, with a particular focus on two crimes, both of which the settlements are alleged to violate: “illegal exploitation of natural resources [and] dispossession of land.”

Welcome to Mosaic

Register now to get two more stories free

Register Now

Already a subscriber? Sign in now

Read more at Harvard Law Review

More about: ICC, International Law, Israel & Zionism, Lawfare, Settlements, United Nations

An Israeli Nonaggression Pact with Sympathetic Arab States Would Be an Important Step on the Road to Peace

Dec. 10 2019

Reportedly, Israel has begun negotiations, mediated by the U.S., to establish a nonaggression pact with Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco. This would bring the hardly secret but still covert ties between these countries and Jerusalem into the open. Without involving a complete normalization of diplomatic relations, such a pact would nevertheless constitute a move in that direction. Yoni Ben Menachem comments:

Sign up to read more

You've read all your free articles for this month

Register

Sign up now for unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

More about: Bahrain, Israel diplomacy, Israel-Arab relations, Morocco, Oman, United Arab Emirates