Australia Urged to Rethink ICC Membership Amid Controversial Arrest Warrants

[Social Media]

 

A leading Australian legal expert has called for the nation to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), claiming the institution is failing to uphold the principles of justice it was designed to protect. This call comes in the wake of the ICC’s contentious decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes against humanity and war crimes during the Gaza conflict ignited by Hamas’ October 7 attacks.

 

Professor Greg Rose from Wollongong University has raised significant concerns about the court’s actions, suggesting that its recent decisions undermine the rule of law and compromise its credibility on the global stage. Speaking to Sky News Australia’s Chris Kenny, Rose stated, “It’s my firm belief that the court is undermining the rule of law, the integrity of the United Nations, and the court’s credibility. In fact, it’s shot, and the best thing that Australia could do would be to pull out.”

 

Rose’s critique focuses heavily on jurisdictional overreach, pointing out that Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. This, he argues, means the court lacks the authority to prosecute Israeli leaders. “The fact that the ICC brought a case against Israel despite it not being bound by the court shows it has exceeded its own jurisdiction,” Rose said.

 

Additionally, Rose criticized the ICC for failing to adhere to principles of due process and procedural fairness enshrined in its statute. He highlighted the court’s disregard for findings by an independent delegation of military experts, which deemed Israel’s domestic investigations adequate. “The court is meant to defer to the domestic processes of the country alleged to have committed the crimes,” he explained. “And then we also have breaches of procedural fairness with the inversion of the burden of proof.”

 

Rose was particularly scathing about the ICC’s evidentiary approach. “The way the court has formulated its issue of warrants requires Israel to prove innocence. It requires Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant to demonstrate that they had no criminal intention… rather than the court finding on the evidence that they had a criminal intention,” he said, adding, “In fact, the court’s substantive judgment is two pages. And it’s really a sad joke.”

 

The involvement of one of the three judges, who had previously worked on prosecuting the case, further fueled accusations of bias. Rose noted, “Normally, if you have a judge working on a case [as a prosecutor] and then going to judge it… that would be needed to give a reasonable apprehension of bias.”

 

Rose’s remarks align with recent statements from Australian political figures. Shadow Attorney General Michaelia Cash hinted at the possibility of a future Coalition government reassessing Australia’s relationship with the ICC. Speaking on Sky News Australia’s Sunday Agenda, she stated, “Given the actions of the ICC, we certainly do have grounds now to reconsider our membership of the organisation.”

 

This renewed scrutiny of the ICC raises questions about its role and relevance in international law, with Australia potentially at a crossroads regarding its continued participation in the court.

 

Based on a report by Sky News 2024-11-28

 

 

 

[malathione]

So, not the International Cricket Council, then. 

[Social Media]

A couple of troll posts removed, one was a blatant Israeli hate speech post @thaibeachlovers

[sherwood]

I doubt the current mob in government would put their hands up to any suggestions of siding with the Israelis.

The weak gutted turds might upset the Muslim voters.