The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has narrowly rejected an appeal filed by the State of Israel against arrest warrants issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are suspected of committing war crimes during the fighting in Gaza.
The decision was adopted by a 3–2 majority, significantly limiting Israel’s ability to have the international arrest warrants revoked. The ruling strikes at the central legal argument underpinning Israel’s challenge, which relied on a procedural clause within the ICC’s principle of complementarity.
Israel’s appeal argued that the Office of the Prosecutor was required to provide advance notice before opening an investigation, allowing Israel—whose judicial system is independent and active—to examine the allegations and conduct its own inquiries.
The Appeals Chamber rejected this claim, ruling that the prosecutor was entitled to rely on a prior notification issued to Israel in 2019 in an unrelated case. Israel contended that the events of October 7 fundamentally altered the legal and factual circumstances, thereby nullifying any previous warning and necessitating a new one. On that basis, Israel argued that the arrest warrants should have been canceled or, at minimum, suspended.
The judges dismissed this argument, dealing a significant blow to Israel’s primary legal strategy.
Additional Appeals Still Pending
Jurisdiction Challenge
Despite the setback, the ruling does not conclude Israel’s legal battle at the ICC. Two additional appeals remain under consideration.
The first challenges the court’s jurisdiction, asserting that the ICC lacks authority over Israel because it is not a party to the Rome Statute. Legal experts regard this appeal as relatively weak, as the court has previously ruled that it may exercise jurisdiction over nationals of non-member states under certain conditions.
The second appeal targets the conduct of Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, who has faced allegations of sexual misconduct in recent months. Israel argues that the investigation was not carried out in good faith and that the request for arrest warrants served as a “smokescreen” to deflect attention from the allegations against him.
Legal sources caution, however, that this line of argument could prove a double-edged sword, potentially weakening Israel’s broader legal standing before the court.
Sharp Israeli Criticism of the ICC
A source familiar with the decision sharply criticized the court, stating:
“There is no willingness to adopt a balanced approach within the framework of the ICC’s own constitution. Time and again, the court demonstrates a lack of minimal respect for state sovereignty—even for countries that are not members and never consented to this framework.”
The source added that such conduct could ultimately force the international community to pursue fundamental changes to the institution.
‘Politics Disguised as International Law’
Israel’s Foreign Ministry issued a strongly worded condemnation following the ruling. In an official statement, it said Israel
“rejects the Appeals Chamber’s decision, adopted by a narrow majority, to deny Israel the right to receive advance warning—as required by the principle of subsidiarity, especially in the case of a democratic country with an independent and robust judicial system.”
The ministry further accused the ICC of
“ongoing politicization and blatant disregard for the sovereign rights of states that are not members of the court, as well as for its own obligations under the Rome Statute.”
The statement concluded:
“This is what politics looks like under the guise of ‘international law.’”
While the rejection of Israel’s main appeal represents a significant legal setback, the pending jurisdictional and procedural challenges mean the case is far from resolved. The outcome of these appeals will shape not only Israel’s exposure to international legal action, but also the broader debate over the ICC’s authority and role in conflicts involving non-member states.
Comments