CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

Veronika D’Evereux CYIL 12 (2021) of Khan-al Ahmar, victims of violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civil Victims of Armed Conflict, child victims, victims of “Israeli terror”, victims of “persecution”, cases of Gaza residents, inhabitants of East Jerusalem, and others. The Court received “statements on behalf of the victims” from these entities. 66 However, in the course of the investigation, more detailed information on the cases under investigation is subject to confidentiality, and therefore it is not possible to find out more details at the time of closing the manuscript. It is possible that based on further court actions and the prosecutors’ investigation might lead to the indictment of specific perpetrators, citizens of the State of Israel and the “State of Palestine” who would be accused of the war crimes which they committed as a state authority in the “Palestinian territory”. It is likely that the court might decide to punish these crimes. Conclusion In conclusion, from a formal point of view, there were certainly reasons why it was possible to address the question of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to deal with Palestinian cases of war crimes committed by persons acting as authorities in the “Palestinian territories”. From a theoretical point of view, there were several options for how the Court could take decision in relation to the question of its jurisdiction. The author believes that the international community’s interest in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, which also affect neighbouring Arab states in the region and international relations on a global scale, played an important role in the decision on the Court’s jurisdiction to deal with the prosecution. These reasons may have outweighed a certain (and in the author’s opinion not insignificant) lack of Palestinian statehood from the point of view of international law. The ICC ruling in the sense that it did not decide that Palestine was a state, but only found that Palestine was a state for the purpose of the Rome Statute, could be considered as a significant moment. This finding can be eventually considered as a precedent. The ICC also emphasized that its decision on territorial jurisdiction in the Palestinian territories should in no way be considered as a ruling relevant to the future determining which areas are parts of the territory of the future State of Palestine in the context of international law. Rather, it is possible to assume that further partial steps might be taken in the future, these steps might lead to the full development of the statehood of Palestine, and that the territory of the future state might be also defined in the future. At the same time, however, it can be more likely expected, that the State of Israel will continue to block as much as possible the full development of Palestinian statehood, and therefore the path to Palestinian statehood will be extremely complicated. The author believes that this prosecution at the ICC may have a rather negative impact on the relationship between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. However, from the point of view of international law, this negative impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations is not entirely relevant.

46

66 Ibidem pp. 19–24.