With UN Vote, Bipartisan Senate Group Threatens Cutoff Of US Aid, Closing Of PLO Office

[FarrenH]

33. It depends

From Wikipedia:

Territorial jurisdiction

During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States.[46] A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under the following limited circumstances:

- where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);
- where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
- where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.[21]

--- snip ---

Despite the fact that Israel has not accepted the ICC's jurisdiction, the PA has, some time ago. This could be read as exposing itself to being prosecuted under international law, or as a deft manoeuvre that anticipated its recent status upgrade.

Since the UN now recognises the PA as a state, and it is a party to the Rome Statute, the above provisions allow it to bring a case against Israel in the ICC on the basis of actions committed in the PA's nominal territory, under the second clause above.

AFAIK, most similar treaties require that member states implement their provisions in domestic law. The Geneva Convention, for instance, has the force of law inside the USA. Implementing these treaties often require additional processes within member states, such as passing acts of congress or parliament.

So countries that have ratified the Rome Statute will generally have some requirement in domestic law to enforce the decisions of the ICC, which could even include the requirement to detain an elected foreign leader should they set foot on a member state's soil. While the PA itself is obviously powerless to enforce any decision of the court against Israeli parties, such a decision might nonetheless have real teeth, thanks to domestic legal provisions in the 121 member states.

Both Israeli and Bush-era administration officials have cancelled trips to certain countries in the last decade because of charges being brought against them in those countries under domestic implementations of international law.