Panel Discussion Summary 

The discussion panel offered an in-depth examination of the ICC's involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, concentrating on the principle of complementarity, state versus individual responsibility, and the interplay between the ICC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Key Points Discussed:

1. State Responsibility vs. Individual Responsibility:

• Sir Geoffrey Robertson opened the discussion by reflecting on the historical context of the Nuremberg Trials, which established the principle that crimes are committed by individuals, not states. He noted that this principle has underpinned international criminal law, focusing on individual criminal responsibility rather than state accountability. Robertson recognized that recent developments at the ICJ, including cases brought by Gambia against Myanmar and South Africa against Israel, indicated a growing interest in holding states accountable for human rights violations. He speculated that these changes might influence future considerations of state responsibility under international law, although traditional views still dominate.

2. UK’s Intervention:

• Dr. Didem Doğar provided a critical analysis of the UK's intervention in the ICC proceedings, arguing that the UK's objections were largely unfounded. She explained that the ICC operates under its own jurisdiction rather than that of the State of Palestine. According to Doğar, the ICC’s authority is based on individual criminal responsibility, not state responsibility. She anticipated that the ICC would reject the UK's objections, reinforcing that the ICC's focus was on prosecuting individuals, not states. Her critique highlighted the complexities of jurisdictional issues in international law and the importance of understanding the ICC's mandate.

3. Principle of Complementarity:

• Dr. Didem Doğar further elaborated on the principle of complementarity, a cornerstone of the ICC's legal framework. She explained that the ICC had not breached this principle by issuing arrest warrants, as there were no ongoing national investigations or prosecutions in Israel or Palestine concerning the crimes under scrutiny. According to the Rome Statute’s Articles 17, 18, and 19, the ICC’s jurisdiction can be challenged if there are genuine national proceedings; however, this was not the case here. Doğar emphasized that previous investigations led by ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and the continuity of these investigations under current Prosecutor Karim Khan, established a sufficient legal basis for proceeding without a new notification. This argument was pivotal in addressing concerns about the ICC's adherence to its own legal standards.

4. ICJ’s Role and Future Developments:

• The panel discussed the evolving role of the ICJ in the context of global human rights and international law. Sir Geoffrey Robertson pointed out the ICJ's increasing willingness to entertain state complaints, particularly under the Genocide Convention. He noted that this development might reflect a broader shift towards recognizing and addressing state responsibility in human rights violations. The panelists considered whether such changes at the ICJ could impact the ICC's approach to state responsibility and the potential for reform in international legal mechanisms.

5. Legal and Practical Considerations:

• Zachary Cooper and John Cooper KC contributed to the debate on whether states could or should be held accountable under the Rome Statute. John Cooper KC highlighted that while the Rome Statute emphasizes individual criminal responsibility, there is an ongoing debate about whether prosecuting states could enhance accountability and provide a more comprehensive approach to addressing international crimes. Zachary Cooper explored the potential benefits of prosecuting states, including the possibility of bringing in additional evidence and strengthening accountability mechanisms. The discussion underscored the complexities of balancing state and individual responsibilities within the framework of international criminal law.

• Silvana Arbia, brought an essential administrative and procedural perspective to the discussion. She emphasized the importance of understanding the ICC’s operational challenges when dealing with complex cases like those in the Israel-Palestine context. Arbia underscored the need for efficient coordination between different bodies of international law, particularly in politically sensitive situations. Her input highlighted the necessity of maintaining the integrity of judicial processes while ensuring justice is served, especially in cases that involve significant geopolitical tensions.

The panel provided a comprehensive legal analysis of the ICC’s actions in the Israel-Palestine context, focusing on the application of the principle of complementarity, the distinction between state and individual responsibility, and the evolving role of the ICJ. The discussion highlighted the complexities of applying international law in politically sensitive situations and the ongoing evolution of legal interpretations and mechanisms. The panel's insights offered a nuanced understanding of the ICC's mandate, the challenges of international criminal justice, and the potential for future developments in global human rights law.