Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Israel
Delegate Name: Matthew Suandi
School: Williamston High School
Topic page: background guide and all position papers All Israel position papers GLIMUN 2011 committees
There are some crimes, that are so heinous, vile, and despicable, that their perpetrator, no matter the circumstances, must be caught and brought to justice. One of the greatest criminals of all time was brought to justice by the State of Israel following the basic principle of universal jurisdiction. His name was Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann facilitated and managed the logistics of the deportation of the Jewish people to ghettos and concentration camps in Europe. After the war, he was captured by Israeli agents in Argentina, and brought to justice in an Israeli court. The acts committed by Eichmann can be classified as crimes against humanity, and these are what the International Criminal Court should concern itself with when considering cases of Universal Jurisdiction.
However, there are times in which Universal Jurisdiction extends itself too far, to a point at which it interferes with a state's right to its national sovereignty. Many have called upon Israeli officials, wrongly convicted of war crimes to be persecuted when they travel to non-Israeli territory. Israel believes that there is a line between what constitutes a state's national security, and the commitment of war crimes.
An often cited case of war crimes committed by Israeli officials is the 2002 assassination of Salah Shehade, a former senior Hamas commander. During his leadership, he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Shehade, who went into hiding following his release from prison, was then eliminated by the Israeli Defense Forces. Though it is unfortunate that others had to perish with him, his killing cannot be classified as a war crime. Shehade, as a member of a terrorist organization, provided for a serious threat to the national sovereignty of Israel and thus he had to be dealt with, no matter how unfortunate the resulting circumstances were.
Israel has deep sympathy with the goals of the ICC. However, it has great concerns that it will reinterpret international law, and in doing so invent new crimes. Israel cannot agree with the inclusion of the clause that "the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory" is a war crime. This clause is why Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute.
Israel is rapidly growing nation. Despite this, it has not constructed any new settlements in the West Bank. It is quite simply impractical to withdraw hundreds of thousands of Israelis from their homes and be forced to resettle them. If all Israeli authority is those territories were to be removed instantaneously, there is no telling as to who would take over, and if it were such radical organization such as Hamas or Hezbollah, the consequences would be degrading towards Israeli national sovereignty. Therefore, Israel cannot ratify the Rome Statute so long as this unjust clause is included.
Israel believes that there must be a certain threshold between what the ICC has the right to incite Universal Jurisdiction in, and what it does not. The ICC must create a clearly defined line between what constitutes war crimes, and what constitutes the national sovereignty of a nation. So long as this is not done, and the language of the the ICC allows for new "crimes" to be created that could not possibly defined as war crimes or crimes against humanity, then Israel will not ratify the Rome Statute. Israel sees many problems with the Rome Statute that must be addressed before the ICC may be authorized with universal jurisdiction, and for Israel to ratify the statute.
