On the legality of the ICC arrest warrants

by Frederic Eger - The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) provides articles on On the legality of the ICC arrest warrants by Frederic Eger - The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) provides articles on arrest warrants. Article 58 states that the Pre-Trial Chamber can issue an arrest warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed a crime within the ICC's jurisdiction, and the arrest is necessary to ensure their appearance at trial, prevent obstruction, or prevent continuation of the crime. Alternatively, the Pre-Trial Chamber may issue a summons to appear if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person will appear voluntarily.

Article 59 outlines the rights of a suspect during the arrest and surrender process, including the right to be informed of charges, be represented by counsel, and not self-incriminate. Article 87 states that States Parties have an obligation to cooperate fully with the ICC in the execution of arrest warrants.

The right of a country to self-defense in international law is well-established, but it is subject to certain conditions and limitations:

The right of self-defense is codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that countries have an "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations". This right is also considered part of customary international law.

However, the use of force in self-defense is subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. The defensive force must be necessary to repel the armed attack and proportional to the threat. The defensive action must also be reported to the UN Security Council.

The International Court of Justice has clarified that self-defense can only be invoked in response to an "armed attack", not just general threats to a country's security. The attack must also be imminent or ongoing, not just a potential future threat. Therefore, the right of self-defense does not extend to preventive or pre-emptive attacks against speculative future threats.

"The UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change" concluded that Article 51 does not allow for "preventive" use of force where there is no evidence of an imminent attack.

Conclusively, a country's right to use force in self-defense under international law is limited to situations of actual or imminent armed attack, with the defensive measures being necessary and proportional. Broader interpretations that allow pre-emptive strikes against potential future threats are generally not accepted under international law.

The ICC arrest warrants, if issued, would violating due process and qualified immunity of government officials in office. The due process violations are conditioned to the reasonableness and proper procedures around their issuance and execution, as well as the potential for abuse of the arrest power more broadly from the ICC. Proper oversight and adherence to constitutional and international customary law standards are necessary to protect against unjustified deprivations of liberty, and in the current case of Israel, forcing a government to end war which aim remain to ensure the non-repetition of a genocidal attack.

Israel's legal team has been challenging the legal validity of the issuance of such secret-or-not arrest warrants by the ICC aiming at possibly arrest Israel's government officials while traveling outside of Israel. Not only these arrest warrants would lack legal grounds but Israel is not party to the ICC’s treaty, the Rome Statute, which render de jure, these warrants null and void.

The issuance of arrest warrants are regulated by constitutional law and international treaties, reasonable grounds, and reasonable search or seizure. Additionally, qualified immunity protects officials from civil and criminal liability from alleged international law violations while exercising their duty of protecting Israel’s territorial integrity, and, the security of its citizens.

There are no legitimate legal grounds for the ICC to issue arrest warrants, on the grounds of politically inflated and biased alleged "war crimes" that are unsubstantiated by objective material evidence, and, are simply the weaponization of the law by genocidal antisemites and antizionistes; even more so if these warrants are issued as "secret arrest warrants" against Israel's government officials in violation of due process.

Israel has the right to self-defense and defensive responses remain necessary and proportional to Israel in the face of Hamas', Hezbollah, Huthis and Iran’s genocidal ideology and foreign policy seeking to annihilate the State of Israel and the Jews worldwide. The military actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, Huthis, other Iran proxies and Iran remain immediate, current and constant.

The political weaponization of international law aims at intimidating Israel and attempting to force it to cease exercising its right to self-defense, effectively attempting to stop Israel's war aim to end Hamas’ military and governing capabilities. As Israel’s government has repeatedly stated: “The war will end with the end of Hamas. Surrender now, release *all the hostages and bring the perpetrators of the October 7th massacre before justice; and the war will end."arrest warrants. Article 58 states that the Pre-Trial Chamber can issue an arrest warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed a crime within the ICC's jurisdiction, and the arrest is necessary to ensure their appearance at trial, prevent obstruction, or prevent continuation of the crime. Alternatively, the Pre-Trial Chamber may issue a summons to appear if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person will appear voluntarily.

Article 59 outlines the rights of a suspect during the arrest and surrender process, including the right to be informed of charges, be represented by counsel, and not self-incriminate. Article 87 states that States Parties have an obligation to cooperate fully with the ICC in the execution of arrest warrants.

The right of a country to self-defense in international law is well-established, but it is subject to certain conditions and limitations:

The right of self-defense is codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that countries have an "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations". This right is also considered part of customary international law.

However, the use of force in self-defense is subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. The defensive force must be necessary to repel the armed attack and proportional to the threat. The defensive action must also be reported to the UN Security Council.

The International Court of Justice has clarified that self-defense can only be invoked in response to an "armed attack", not just general threats to a country's security. The attack must also be imminent or ongoing, not just a potential future threat. Therefore, the right of self-defense does not extend to preventive or pre-emptive attacks against speculative future threats.

"The UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change" concluded that Article 51 does not allow for "preventive" use of force where there is no evidence of an imminent attack.

Conclusively, a country's right to use force in self-defense under international law is limited to situations of actual or imminent armed attack, with the defensive measures being necessary and proportional. Broader interpretations that allow pre-emptive strikes against potential future threats are generally not accepted under international law.

The ICC arrest warrants, if issued, would violating due process and qualified immunity of government officials in office. The due process violations are conditioned to the reasonableness and proper procedures around their issuance and execution, as well as the potential for abuse of the arrest power more broadly from the ICC. Proper oversight and adherence to constitutional and international customary law standards are necessary to protect against unjustified deprivations of liberty, and in the current case of Israel, forcing a government to end war which aim remain to ensure the non-repetition of a genocidal attack.

Israel's legal team has been challenging the legal validity of the issuance of such secret or not arrest warrants by the ICC aiming at possibly arrest Israel's government while traveling outside of Israel. Not only these arrest warrants would lack legal grounds but Israel is not party to the ICC’s treaty, the Rome Statute, which render de jure, these warrants nul and void.

The issuance of arrest warrants are regulated by constitutional law and international treaties, reasonable grounds, and reasonable search or seizure. Additionally, qualified immunity protects officials from civil and criminal liability from alleged international law violations while exercising their duty of protecting Israel’s territorial integrity, and, the security of its citizens.

There are no legitimate legal grounds for the ICC to issue arrest warrants, on the grounds of politically inflated and biased "alleged war crimes" that are unsubstantiated by objective material evidence, and, are simply the weaponization by genocidal antisemites and antizionistes; even more so if these warrants are issued as "secret arrest warrants" against Israel's government officials in violation of due process. Israel has since the right to self-defense and defensive responses remain necessary and proportional to Israel in the face of Hamas', Hezbollah, Huthis and Iran’s genocidal ideology and foreign policy seeking to annihilate the State of Israel and the Jews worldwide. The military actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, Huthis, other Iran proxies and Iran remain immediate, current and constant.

These are shameful political weaponization of international law aiming at intimidating Israel and attempting to force it to cease exercising its right to self-defense, effectively attempting to stop Israel's war aim to end Hamas’ military and governing capabilities. As Israel’s government has repeatedly stated: “The war will end with the end of Hamas. Surrender now, release the hostages and bring the perpetrators of the October 7th massacre before justice; and the war will end."