Vous êtes ici

La Palestine et la CPI : place au droit, la place du droit

Portrait de Pr. Philippe WECKEL
Soumis par Pr. Philippe WECKEL le dim, 01/18/2015 - 01:42

Le procureur ouvre un examen préalable de la situation de Palestine – Décision fondée sur la déclaration adressée par la Palestine à la Cour, mais conditionnée par l’enregistrement de l’accession au Statut de Rome – Perspectives de l’autosaisine de la Cour par l’ouverture d’une enquête – Pouvoir de la Cour de choisir les crimes – Le droit occupe tout l’espace de discussion – Droit d’Israël de contester la compétence de la Cour – Enquêtes préliminaires en Israël – Complémentarité – Droit d’Israël d’opposer l’irrecevabilité des poursuites – Position des Etats-Unis – Contestation de la légitimité de la démarche palestinienne – Contestation de la capacité de traiter (treaty making power) – La place du droit – L’action de la Cour peut contribuer à clarifier certaines questions – Cohérence de l’attitude des Etats avec les valeurs de justice et de droit qu’ils défendent

 

L’ouverture d’un examen préalable de la situation de Palestine

Dans une déclaration abondamment motivée en droit le Procureur près la Cour pénale internationale a annoncé le 16 janvier 2015 l’ouverture d’un examen préliminaire de la situation de Palestine. Ces premières investigations devraient lui permettre de rassembler les éléments nécessaires pour demander à la Chambre préliminaire de l’autoriser à ouvrir une enquête sur la situation en question. On observe que l’organe d’accusation se réfère à la fois à la lettre de ratification déposée par la Palestine le 2 janvier 2015 auprès de Secrétariat général de l’ONU et à la déclaration adressée la veille par cette dernière à la CPI au titre de l’article 12.3 du Statut.

L’ouverture d’un examen préliminaire suppose, aux termes de l’article 15 du Statut, que la Cour soit déjà compétente à l’égard de la situation en Palestine. Or le Statut de Rome n’entrera en vigueur que trois mois après le dépôt de l’instrument d’accession (Art. 126 : « le premier jour du mois suivant le soixantième jour après le dépôt »). Néanmoins par la déclaration du 1er janvier la Palestine a consenti à la compétence de la Cour avec effet immédiat et même rétroactif, puisque la compétence est étendue par cette déclaration à tout fait qui se serait produit à compter du 13 juin 2014. Cette rétroactivité est expressément autorisée par les articles 11 et 12.3 du Statut.

Le dépôt de l’instrument d’accession était néanmoins utile pour le Procureur. En effet en acceptant d’enregistrer ce dépôt et de le notifier, le dépositaire, le Secrétaire général de l’ONU, reconnaît que la Palestine est, prima facie, un Etat au sens de l’Article 126 du Statut. Cette référence constitue, aux yeux du Procureur, une indication pertinente pour établir la compétence de la Cour, parce qu’une entité considérée comme un Etat en ce que concerne l’adhésion au Statut devrait avoir le pouvoir de lui déférer une situation.

Le Procureur a pris la Palestine de vitesse, sans attendre qu’elle puisse lui renvoyer certains crimes – les crimes commis par l’adversaire, bien entendu - après l’entrée en vigueur du Statut. Il opte manifestement pour la possibilité que lui confère cet instrument de l’autosaisine de la Cour par l’ouverture d’une enquête. L’impartialité qui s’impose à la Cour l’invitait évidemment à procéder à cette démarche.

Il est donc très difficile d’anticiper au stade actuel vers quels crimes la CPI s’orientera. On peut très bien envisager que le Procureur et la chambre préliminaire aillent là où on ne les attend pas. Ainsi ils pourraient s’intéresser aux récentes décisions relatives à de nouvelles implantations israéliennes à Jérusalem-Est. Or il s’agit d’actes juridiques publiés et, au moins, la Cour ne rencontrerait-elle pas de difficultés insurmontables pour disposer de la preuve des faits. Bien-sûr on s’attend à ce que l’enquête soit dirigée vers les événements de l’été 2014 et l’opération militaire israélienne à Gaza. Là encore la facilité orienterait plutôt vers la mise en cause des combattants palestiniens. En effet, la Cour devrait pouvoir compter sur la collaboration du gouvernement de Ramallah, alors qu’elle devra s’en passer, s’agissant d’Israël.

L’avocat général de l’armée israélienne a ouvert un certain nombre d’enquêtes préliminaires au sujet d’incidents au cours de l’opération à Gaza. En théorie, il serait de bonne tactique pour les dirigeants israéliens de précipiter les procédures et d’inculper quelques-unes des personnes mises en cause dans ces incidents. On ne l’imagine pas pendant la période électorale actuelle et pas plus après. Pourtant l’exercice effectif par Israël de sa compétence répressive rendrait les actions du Procureur visant des responsables de l’armée israélienne irrecevables. On rappelle que la compétence de la juridiction internationale n’est que complémentaire de celle des juridictions nationales.

 

Place au droit

On touche là à l’élément essentiel de la situation nouvelle. Désormais toute la discussion utile se déplace vers le prétoire de la Cour pénale internationale.

1. Israël

Les dirigeants politiques d’Israël forment un front uni pour protéger les soldats. On envisage une offensive diplomatique d’envergure contre la Cour pénale internationale pour donner aux soldats un « gilet pare-balles juridique ». Mais que pourraient faire les interlocuteurs bienveillants, alors que les questions de droit occupent tout l’espace de discussion ? Le Statut de Rome confère explicitement à Israël, Etat non-partie, le droit de contester devant la Cour la compétence de cette dernière. La Palestine ne serait pas un Etat ? Mais, ni la Résolution de l’Assemblée générale, ni l’attitude du Secrétaire général ne fournissent des indications définitives sur cette question qui a toute sa place dans le débat judiciaire. Il serait même invraisemblable que le point de vue d’Israël n’y soit pas défendu. Normalement, Israël ne devrait pas craindre l’engagement de procédures devant la CPI, parce qu’il s’est dirigé vers des enquêtes sérieuses pouvant mener à la condamnation des responsables éventuels. Il a le droit d’opposer l’irrecevabilité des poursuites en vertu de la complémentarité et d’amener les juges à trancher à l’issue d’un débat contradictoire, puis de faire appel, si nécessaire. Israël et « l’armée la plus morale au monde » respectent parfaitement le droit international ? Soit, la justice est alors de leur côté et ils n’ont rien à en craindre.

Evidemment les choses se présentent plutôt mal pour Israël qui a encore une fois – une fois de trop - frappé sans discernement à Gaza. La légitime défense ne justifie aucune dérogation au droit humanitaire. La réplique comme l’attaque initiale sont soumises aux mêmes règles et, en particulier, la distinction des cibles civiles et militaires. Israël n’a pas voulu cette opération et s’est retenu d’intervenir bien au-delà du seuil de l’intolérable pour sa population. Il faut lui donner acte de cette extrême retenue. On ne trouve évidement aucune excuse aux attaques qui ont visé la population israélienne depuis Gaza et notamment pas le faible nombre de victimes. En effet, la tentative est jugée avec la même sévérité que le meurtre. Toutefois, la manière dont l’action militaire israélienne a été menée a choqué tous les Etats, y compris les Etats-Unis. L’excès dans l’usage de la force a été jugé inacceptable, notamment par les Etats européens. La mobilisation internationale suscitée par l’émotion face à cette violence a d’ailleurs contraint Israël à interrompre l’opération à Gaza au prix d’un accord avec le Hamas. Paradoxalement, l’Etat qui a été victime d’une agression d’envergure contre sa population civile a suscité finalement l’unanimité contre lui pour faire cesser le massacre dans la ville palestinienne (plus de 2000 morts). Ainsi, les propos les plus récents d’Israël et des Etats-Unis au sujet de l’action de la CPI soulignent-ils un paradoxe qui n’est que le reflet de l’attitude d’Israël au cours des événements de l’été 2014.

Les Etats, dans leur majorité, n’ont pas apprécié la démarche entreprise par la Palestine vers la Cour pénale internationale. Elle aggrave l’état des relations entre Israéliens et Palestiniens et elle ferme tout espoir d’une reprise des négociations de paix dans un avenir proche. De là à soutenir Israël dans sa démarche contre la Cour pénale internationale, il y a un pas que ne franchiront pas ceux qui gardent le souvenir douloureux de la violence israélienne et du bilan humain de l’opération. Israël a perdu une bataille morale qui le place très mal pour gagner cette bataille juridique lancée contre lui par la Palestine.

 

2. Les Etats-Unis

Il reste la question beaucoup plus délicate de la position des Etats-Unis. L’Arabie Saoudite a laissé poindre sa colère cette semaine lors de la discussion au Conseil de sécurité. Les Européens sont silencieux et n’agiront que sur la base d’une position concertée. Il y a nécessairement dans leur esprit une ligne rouge à ne pas franchir en ce qui concerne les intérêts des Palestiniens et la protection due à la Cour pénale internationale. Si le Congrès impose à l’Administration américaine de suspendre l’aide financière à l’autorité palestinienne, il précipitera la fin du leadership des Etats-Unis dans le processus de paix : le défaut sera évidemment compensé par les Etats arabes menés par l’Arabie saoudite et par l’Europe.

Pour l’heure le gouvernement Obama s’en tient à la position juridique qu’il a toujours défendue et elle constitue l’axe central de son opposition à l’implication de la Cour pénale internationale. N’étant pas un Etat au sens du droit international, l’entité palestinienne n’aurait pas la capacité d’accéder au Statut de Rome. Par ailleurs, il critique fortement l’opportunité de l’initiative du gouvernement de Ramallah. En somme elle serait illégitime.

Il est très difficile, sinon impossible, de considérer le comportement de l’autorité palestinienne comme une démarche abusive. Le Statut de Rome n’est que l’un des 12 instruments multilatéraux ouverts dont la Palestine a déposé l’instrument d’accession ces derniers jours. Ce mouvement de ratification est le second, puisqu’elle avait agi de même pour 15 autres conventions en 2014. En ratifiant ces 27 instruments la Palestine donne des garanties internationales de l’Etat de droit et de la démocratie et elle s’inscrit parfaitement dans l’esprit du processus de paix. Incorporé à cet ensemble l’accession au statut de la Cour pénale internationale est cohérente et justifiée.

La Résolution de l’Assemblée générale de 2012 attribue à la Palestine, en vertu d’une compétence qui ne lui est pas contestée, le statut d’Etat observateur. Personne ne conteste non plus qu’un usage établi distingue le statut d’Etat observateur de celui d’une entité observatrice. Il est admis aussi que les traités multilatéraux généraux ouverts qui ont une vocation universelle sont accessibles aux Etats non membres de l’ONU. En ratifiant les 27 conventions la Palestine exerce de la manière la plus conforme à l’usage établi une capacité qui découle du statut qui lui a été conféré. Un Etat partie à une convention multilatérale ouverte n’est pas en mesure de s’opposer à l’accession d’un Etat qu’il ne reconnaît pas. Il est lié à cet Etat comme à l’égard de n’importe quel autre Etat partie, parce qu’il n’a pas exprimé son consentement à être lié intuitu personae. Ainsi, en ratifiant le Pacte des droits civils et politiques, les Etats-Unis ont accepté par avance d’être engagés envers tout Etat qui viendrait à accéder à ce traité. Les Etats-Unis n’ont rien à dire, rien à redire à l’accession de la Palestine à ces 27 instruments et au Statut de Rome tout spécialement.

La Cour pénale internationale s’autosaisira de la situation de Palestine. L’Etat palestinien n’a donc pas saisi la CPI contre Israël. Comme tous les Etats parties, il consent à la compétence de la juridiction internationale. On ne saurait lui faire le reproche de mener une forme d’attaque procédurière contre Israël.

Les Etats-Unis s’arrogeraient-ils le droit d’interpréter une convention à laquelle ils ne sont pas partie ? Iront ils expliquer à la CPI ce qu’est le sens du mot Etat dans ce traité qui est res inter alios acta pour eux ? La capacité de traiter de la Palestine n’est pas attribuée par le droit international général, mais par le Statut. Un accord de volonté est électif : c’est la force de la volonté commune qui rend chaque partie éligible à cette qualité. Sans doute les Etats-Unis veulent dire plutôt que la Palestine n’a pas le pouvoir d’étendre la compétence de la Cour, mais on n’anticipera pas ici un débat qui n’a pas encore commencé. Il faudra plus aux Etats-Unis que cet argument élémentaire et simpliste sur le Treaty making power pour convaincre. On les attend sur le terrain de l'interprétation du droit. On expliquera alors à ces étrangers à la communauté des Etats parties ce qu'est la CPI, cette institution spécialisée des Nations Unies et la protection juridique universelle qu'elle vise.

 

La place du droit

En somme le conflit israélo-palestinien entre à nouveau dans l’entonnoir des questions juridiques. On a qualifié l’adhésion de la Palestine au Statut de Rome de « bombe atomique ». L’explosion ne se produira pas. La saisine de la Cour internationale de justice d’une demande d’avis sur la licéité du mur israélien en territoire palestinien avait suscité les plus vives alarmes des diplomates occidentaux. On allait préjuger de l’issue du processus de paix. On cristalliserait une approche de stigmatisation qui empêcherait la négociation. Le mur est toujours là et le conflit n’est pas réglé, mais l’Avis de la Cour a clarifié plusieurs questions essentielles. S’il existe aujourd’hui un large consensus sur le contenu de l’accord de paix que les deux parties devraient conclure, un tel progrès résulte pour une part importante des éclaircissements apportés par la Cour mondiale. Verra-t-on un jour des prisonniers israéliens et palestiniens se côtoyer au centre de détention de La Haye ? La question est mal posée et sans intérêt véritable aujourd’hui.

La relation transatlantique n’a peut-être jamais été aussi féconde, mais elle est toujours menacée par un fossé des valeurs. Or le Statut de Rome contient un engagement résolu à la réalisation durable de la justice internationale. Les Etats parties s’en sont portés garants, ainsi que l’exprime le préambule. La prolongation de la situation actuelle en Palestine est insupportable. Chacun en convient, y compris les Etats-Unis, mais ces-derniers semblent s’en accommoder finalement. La population palestinienne est privée de la protection juridique et matérielle qu’apporte la puissance étatique. Ils y ont droit pourtant. La CPI ne règlera pas leur sort, mais elle peut y contribuer dans le registre qui est le sien, aussi loin qu’elle pourra progresser. S’agissant des Etats, il appartient à chacun bien entendu de se montrer cohérent avec les valeurs de droit et de justice qu’il défend.

 

DOCUMENTS

 

ONU

16 JANVIER 2015 La Cour pénale internationale ouvre un examen préliminaire de la situation en Palestine

15 JANVIER 2015 Conseil de sécurité: « le conflit israélo-palestinien entre sur un terrain inconnu qui semble avoir éclipsé tout espoir de reprise des pourparlers »

7 JANVIER 2015 Ban Ki-Moon accepte le dépôt des demandes d'adhésion de la Palestine à plusieurs traités

2 JANVIER 2015 La Palestine présente sa demande d'adhésion à plusieurs conventions et traités, dont celui de la CPI

 

Accession de la Palestine à un ensemble de traités

1.CONVENTION SUR L'INTERDICTION OU LA LIMITATION DE L'EMPLOI DE CERTAINES ARMES CLASSIQUES QUI PEUVENT ÊTRE CONSIDÉRÉES COMME PRODUISANT DES EFFETS TRAUMATIQUES EXCESSIFS OU COMME FRAPPANT SANS DISCRIMINATION (AVEC PROTOCOLES I, II ET III) GENÈVE, 10 OCTOBRE 19801.

2.ACCORD RELATIF À L'APPLICATION DE LA PARTIE XI DE LA CONVENTION DES NATIONS UNIES SUR LE DROIT DE LA MER DU 10 DÉCEMBRE 1982 NEW YORK, 28 JUILLET 1994

2.PROTOCOLE FACULTATIF À LA CONVENTION SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DU PERSONNEL DES NATIONS UNIES ET DU PERSONNEL ASSOCIÉ NEW YORK, 8 DÉCEMBRE 2005

3.CONVENTION SUR LES ARMES À SOUS-MUNITIONS DUBLIN, 30 MAI 20083.

4.STATUT DE ROME DE LA COUR PÉNALE INTERNATIONALE, ROME, 17 JUILLET 19984.

5.ACCORD SUR LES PRIVILÈGES ET IMMUNITÉS DE LA COUR PÉNALE INTERNATIONALE NEW YORK, 9 SEPTEMBRE 2002

6.CONVENTION SUR L'IMPRESCRIPTIBILITÉ DES CRIMES DE GUERRE ET DES CRIMES CONTRE L'HUMANITÉ NEW YORK, 26 NOVEMBRE 19686.

7.CONVENTION DES NATIONS UNIES SUR LE DROIT DE LA MER MONTEGO BAY, 10 DÉCEMBRE 19827.

8.CONVENTION SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DU PERSONNEL DES NATIONS UNIES ET DU PERSONNEL ASSOCIÉ NEW YORK, 9 DÉCEMBRE 19948.

9.CONVENTION DES NATIONS UNIES CONTRE LA CRIMINALITÉ TRANSNATIONALE ORGANISÉE NEW YORK, 15 NOVEMBRE 2000CONVENTION SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DES INFRACTIONS CONTRE LES PERSONNES JOUISSANT D'UNE PROTECTION INTERNATIONALE, Y COMPRIS LES AGENTS DIPLOMATIQUES NEW YORK, 14 DÉCEMBRE 1973

10.CONVENTION SUR LA DIVERSITÉ BIOLOGIQUE RIO DE JANEIRO, 5 JUIN 1992

10.PROTOCOLE DE CARTAGENA SUR LA PRÉVENTION DES RISQUES BIOTECHNOLOGIQUES RELATIF À LA CONVENTION SUR LA DIVERSITÉ BIOLOGIQUE MONTRÉAL, 29 JANVIER 200010.

11.CONVENTION DE BÂLE SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES MOUVEMENTS TRANSFRONTIÈRES DE DÉCHETS DANGEREUX ET DE LEUR ÉLIMINATIONCONVENTION POUR LA RECONNAISSANCE ET L'EXÉCUTION DES SENTENCES ARBITRALES ÉTRANGÈRES

12.CONVENTION SUR LES DROITS POLITIQUES DE LA FEMME, NEW YORK, 31 MARS 195312.

 

Précédentes accessions de la Palestine (2014)

1.PROTOCOLE FACULTATIF À LA CONVENTION RELATIVE AUX DROITS DE L'ENFANT, CONCERNANT L'IMPLICATION D'ENFANTS DANS LES CONFLITS ARMÉS NEW YORK, 25 MAI 2000

2.CONVENTION DE VIENNE SUR LE DROIT DES TRAITÉS VIENNE, 23 MAI 1969

3.CONVENTION DES NATIONS UNIES CONTRE LA CORRUPTION NEW YORK, 31 OCTOBRE 20033.

4.CONVENTION RELATIVE AUX DROITS DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES NEW YORK, 13 DÉCEMBRE 2006

5.CONVENTION RELATIVE AUX DROITS DE L'ENFANT NEW YORK, 20 NOVEMBRE 1989

6.CONVENTION CONTRE LA TORTURE ET AUTRES PEINES OU TRAITEMENTS CRUELS, INHUMAINS OU DÉGRADANTS NEW YORK, 10 DÉCEMBRE 1984

7.CONVENTION SUR L'ÉLIMINATION DE TOUTES LES FORMES DE DISCRIMINATION À L'ÉGARD DES FEMMES NEW YORK, 18 DÉCEMBRE 19797.

8.CONVENTION INTERNATIONALE SUR L'ÉLIMINATION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME D'APARTHEID NEW YORK, 30 NOVEMBRE 1973

9.CONVENTION INTERNATIONALE SUR L'ÉLIMINATION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME D'APARTHEID NEW YORK, 30 NOVEMBRE 1973

10.PACTE INTERNATIONAL RELATIF AUX DROITS CIVILS ET POLITIQUES NEW YORK, 16 DÉCEMBRE 1966

11.PACTE INTERNATIONAL RELATIF AUX DROITS ÉCONOMIQUES, SOCIAUX ET CULTURELS NEW YORK, 16 DÉCEMBRE 1966

12.CONVENTION INTERNATIONALE SUR L'ÉLIMINATION DE TOUTES LES FORMES DE DISCRIMINATION RACIALE NEW YORK, 7 MARS 196612.

13.CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE PARIS, 9 DÉCEMBRE 194813.

14.CONVENTION DE VIENNE SUR LES RELATIONS CONSULAIRES VIENNE, 24 AVRIL 1963 ÉTAT DE PALESTINE : ADHÉSION

15.CONVENTION DE VIENNE SUR LES RELATIONS DIPLOMATIQUES VIENNE, 18 AVRIL 1961

 

La Cour pénale internationale

Le Procureur de la Cour pénale internationale, Fatou Bensouda, ouvre un examen préliminaire de la situation en Palestine

 ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083

Aujourd'hui, vendredi 16 janvier 2015, le Procureur de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), Mme Fatou Bensouda, a ouvert un examen préliminaire de la situation en Palestine. 

La décision du Procureur fait suite à l'adhésion du Gouvernement palestinien au Statut de Rome le 2 janvier 2015 et à la déclaration de ce même gouvernement, déposée le 1er janvier 2015 au titre de l'article 12‑3 du Statut de Rome ‑ le traité fondateur de la Cour ‑ par laquelle il acceptait la compétence de la CPI s'agissant de crimes présumés commis « dans les territoires palestiniens occupés, notamment à Jérusalem-Est, depuis le 13 juin 2014 ».

Lorsque son Bureau reçoit un renvoi ou une déclaration valide déposée en vertu de l'article 12-3 du Statut, le Procureur, conformément à la norme 25-1-c du Règlement du Bureau du Procureur, a pour politique et pratique de procéder à un examen préliminaire de la situation en question. De ce fait, le Procureur a ouvert un examen préliminaire de la situation en Palestine. Le Bureau effectuera son analyse en toute indépendance et en toute impartialité.

Un examen préliminaire n'est pas une enquête mais un processus consistant à examiner les informations disponibles afin de déterminer en toute connaissance de cause, s'il existe une base raisonnable pour initier une enquête au regard des critères posés par le Statut de Rome. Le Procureur analysera en particulier les questions liées à la compétence, à la recevabilité et aux intérêts de la justice lorsqu'elle prendra sa décision, ainsi qu'il est prévu à l'article 53-1 du Statut de Rome. Le Bureau tient dûment compte de l'ensemble des observations et des points de vue qui lui sont transmis au cours de l'examen préliminaire, guidé exclusivement par les exigences du Statut de Rome pour exercer son mandat en toute indépendance et en toute impartialité.

Le Statut de Rome n'impose aucun délai pour rendre une décision relative à un examen préliminaire. Le Bureau pourra décider, en fonction des faits et des circonstances propres à chaque situation, de continuer à recueillir des informations afin de rendre une décision dûment motivée en fait et en droit, d'ouvrir une enquête sous réserve, si nécessaire, d'une autorisation judiciaire, ou de ne pas en ouvrir.

Contexte et analyse juridique

Le Bureau avait déjà conduit un examen préliminaire de la situation en Palestine lorsqu'il avait reçu, le 22 janvier 2009, une déclaration déposée par l'Autorité nationale palestinienne invoquant l'article 12‑3. Il avait alors soigneusement examiné tous les arguments juridiques présentés et conclu, en avril 2012, au terme d'une analyse approfondie et de consultations publiques, que le statut de la Palestine à l'Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU) en tant qu'« entité observatrice » était déterminant, puisque l'adhésion au Statut de Rome se fait par l'intermédiaire du Secrétaire général de l'ONU, qui agit en tant que dépositaire de ce traité. Le statut d'« entité observatrice » dont jouissait alors l'Autorité palestinienne à l'ONU, contrairement à celui d'« État non membre », l'empêchait de signer ou de ratifier le Statut de Rome. Étant donné que la Palestine ne pouvait alors pas devenir partie à ce traité, le Bureau avait conclu qu'elle ne pouvait pas non plus déposer de déclaration en vertu de l'article 12‑3 qui lui aurait permis d'entrer dans son champ d'application, comme elle en avait l'intention. 

Le 29 novembre 2012, l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies a adopté la Résolution 67/19, par laquelle elle a octroyé à la Palestine le statut d'« État observateur non membre » à l'ONU avec une majorité de 138 votes pour, neuf votes contre et 41 abstentions. Le Bureau a examiné les retombées juridiques de ce changement de statut sur sa mission et a estimé, en s'appuyant sur l'analyse approfondie qu'il avait réalisée ainsi que sur les consultations qu'il avait engagées sur ces sujets, que bien que ce changement ne puisse valider rétroactivement la déclaration déposée en 2009 qui ne remplissait pas les conditions requises et qui avait été jugée non recevable, la Palestine serait en mesure d'accepter la compétence de la Cour à partir du 29 novembre 2012, en vertu des articles 12 et 125 du Statut de Rome. Le Statut est en effet ouvert à l'adhésion de « tous les États », le Secrétaire général agissant en tant que dépositaire des instruments d'adhésion.

Le 2 janvier 2015, la Palestine a déposé son instrument d'adhésion au Statut de Rome auprès du Secrétaire général de l'ONU. Comme indiqué dans le Précis de la pratique du Secrétaire général en tant que dépositaire de traités multilatéraux, « le Secrétaire général, en s'acquittant de ses fonctions de dépositaire d'une convention contenant la clause "tous les États", suivra la pratique de l'Assemblée générale dans l'application de cette clause […] ». La pratique de l'Assemblée générale « se déduit d'indications par lesquelles l'Assemblée manifeste sans ambiguïté qu'elle considère une entité particulière comme un État ». Conformément à cette pratique et notamment à l'adoption, le 6 janvier 2015, de la Résolution 67/19 par l'Assemblée, le Secrétaire général, agissant en tant que dépositaire, a accepté l'adhésion de la Palestine au Statut de Rome, qui est ainsi devenue le 123e État partie à la CPI, et a été accueillie à ce titre par le Président de l'Assemblée des États parties au Statut de Rome.

De même, le 7 janvier 2015, le Greffier de la CPI a indiqué au Président Abbas qu'il acceptait la déclaration déposée en vertu de l'article 12‑3 par le Gouvernement de la Palestine le 1er janvier 2015 et que celle-ci avait été transmise au Procureur pour qu'il puisse l'examiner à son tour.

Le Bureau estime que, dans la mesure où le statut d'État observateur à l'ONU a été octroyé à la Palestine par l'Assemblée générale, il convient de considérer la Palestine comme un « État » aux fins de son adhésion au Statut de Rome (conformément à la formule « tous les États »). En outre, comme l'a déclaré publiquement le Bureau par le passé, le terme « État » au sens de l'article 12‑3 du Statut de Rome doit être interprété de la même manière que le terme « État » au sens de l'article 12‑1. Par conséquent, un État qui est en mesure de devenir partie au Statut de Rome est également en mesure de déposer une déclaration valide au titre de l'article 12‑3.

Pour le Bureau, la question du statut de la Palestine à l'ONU a toujours été au centre de son analyse de la capacité de la Palestine à devenir partie au Statut de Rome, étant donné le rôle joué par le Secrétaire général de l'ONU qui agit en tant que dépositaire de ce traité. La résolution 67/19 de l'Assemblée générale est par conséquent déterminante s'agissant de la capacité de la Palestine à adhérer au Statut de Rome au titre de l'article 125 et, en outre, de sa capacité à déposer une déclaration en vertu de l'article 12-3.

Le Bureau du Procureur de la CPI mène des enquêtes et des poursuites à propos du crime de génocide, de crimes contre l'humanité et de crimes de guerre, en toute indépendance et en toute impartialité. Le Bureau a ouvert des enquêtes dans neuf situations : en Ouganda, en République démocratique du Congo, au Darfour (Soudan), en République centrafricaine, au Kenya, en Libye, en Côte d'Ivoire et au Mali. Il conduit également des examens préliminaires concernant les situations en Afghanistan, en Colombie, en Géorgie, en Guinée, au Honduras, en Iraq, au Nigeria et en Ukraine.

Déclaration de la Palestine en vertu de l'article 12‑3 du Statut de Rome (en anglais)| 1er janvier 2015.

Document de politique générale relatif aux examens préliminaires| novembre 2013.

Update on Situation in Palestine O3 /01/2015

Summary of submissions on whether the declaration lodged by the Palestinian National Authority meets statutory requirements 03/05/2010

 

Position des Etats-Unis

Readout of the President’s Call with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel January 12, 2015

(…)

On the Palestinian ICC bid, President Obama reiterated the United States’ position that the Palestinian Authority does not yet constitute a state and is therefore not eligible to accede to the Rome Statute.  President Obama underscored that the United States does not believe Palestinian accession to the ICC is a constructive way forward.  The United States continues to strongly oppose actions by both parties that undermine trust and encourages both sides to seek ways to deescalate tensions.

Press Statement, Jeff Rathke Director, Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of Press Relations Washington, DC January 16, 2015

We strongly disagree with the ICC Prosecutor's action today. As we have said repeatedly, we do not believe that Palestine is a state and therefore we do not believe that it is eligible to join the ICC. It is a tragic irony that Israel, which has withstood thousands of terrorist rockets fired at its civilians and its neighborhoods, is now being scrutinized by the ICC. The place to resolve the differences between the parties is through direct negotiations, not unilateral actions by either side. We will continue to oppose actions against Israel at the ICC as counterproductive to the cause of peace.

 

Jeff Rathke, Director, Press Office, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, January 16, 2015 MIDDLE EAST PEACE

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the ICC preliminary probe in the Palestinian territories?

MR. RATHKE: Yes. Well, as we’ve made clear over the last couple of weeks, we are deeply troubled by Palestinian action at the ICC. Our position on this is clear, and we don’t think that the Palestinians have established a state, and we don’t think they’re eligible to join the International Criminal Court. I would highlight that many other countries share this view, and we’ve put out a lengthy position paper on that to which people can refer. So our --

QUESTION: But wasn’t there – I mean, this is a prosecutor of the --

MR. RATHKE: Right. That’s – so that’s – no, I wanted to start, though, just to remind.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MR. RATHKE: So to be clear, what the prosecutor announced today is not an investigation. It’s a preliminary examination. Now, I don’t have any further comment on it, and in general, as we’ve long said, the United States strongly opposes actions by both parties that undermine trust and create doubts about their commitment to a negotiated peace.

QUESTION: Okay, but --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: No, wait --

MR. RATHKE: No, go ahead.

QUESTION: Your comment – except for “no comment,” the rest was extraneous to the question, right?

MR. RATHKE: This – well this has just happened in the last couple of hours. I don’t have any further comment to offer on the announcement by the ICC prosecutor.

QUESTION: Would you hope that, if the prosecutor moves forward, he would examine the possibility of infractions by both sides and not just one side?

MR. RATHKE: Well, I don’t think we’re in the position of giving advice to the ICC prosecutor on that score.

QUESTION: Even on impartiality you don’t give advice?

MR. RATHKE: Well, again, we – going back to where I started, we don’t believe that the Palestinians have formed or established a state, and we don’t think they’re eligible to join the International Criminal Court, so –

QUESTION: But I don’t think this investigation necessarily hinges on that, because they still haven’t joined and this prosecutor is investigating regardless. So that comment – that notwithstanding, your point’s noted on the Palestinians, they’re not a member, and this thing has been opened nevertheless. So what’s your position on the investigation, not – or the preliminary examination, not the Palestinians’ course of action?

QUESTION: Is it an illegitimate preliminary examination?

MR. RATHKE: I’m not going to characterize it. Again, this has just happened, so I’m not going to characterize it further at this point.

QUESTION: Both the Israeli prime minister and the foreign minister have condemned the ICC’s decision to open this preliminary exam. Would it be fair to say that the U.S. Government shares their view?

MR. RATHKE: Well, look, our view on the Palestinians joining the ICC I would go back to, so I’m not – I haven’t seen those particular statements by Israeli officials, so I’m not going to say anything one way or another about them. Again, this is an announcement that has just taken place. We’re looking at it. Our view is – on the broader question of the ICC, we don’t think the Palestinians have met the necessary requirements to be a part of it.

QUESTION: I’m not sure that’s the broader question. I think that’s a completely separate question, but --

MR. RATHKE: Well, I think --

QUESTION: -- I don’t quite --

MR. RATHKE: -- it’s certainly related, so --

QUESTION: Is it conceivable that the U.S. will appeal to the ICC to drop the preliminary examination?

MR. RATHKE: I’m not going to speculate about anything like that. As you know, we’re not a member of the ICC, but I’m not going to speculate about any particular steps.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. ever asked the ICC not to look into any particular case involving human rights violations?

MR. RATHKE: I don’t have that at my fingertips, Roz. I’m happy to look, but I don’t have that.

 

Jen Psaki Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC January 8, 2015 MIDDLE EAST PEACE

QUESTION: -- on the Palestinians and the ICC. And I’m just wondering: In any of this, which you – this is your opinion, that the U.S. – you don’t believe the Palestinians are eligible to join. But is there anything that the United States can do to stop the Palestinians from doing this? I mean, opinions are like noses, right? Everyone’s got one, but does this one – does your opinion on this make any difference since you’re not a member?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to do the analysis of what influence our opinion has, Matt. You can ask other people that question.

QUESTION: And there are some unfortunate people without noses.

QUESTION: I suppose, but everyone usually --

MS. PSAKI: That is true. It’s a different question, but --

QUESTION: Most people are born with them. Anyway, the – in addition to submitting – well, the deal is that the ICC has welcomed them as the 123rd member state of the court, of the Statute of Rome, whether you think that they’re eligible or not.

MS. PSAKI: Well, wait a second, Matt. They – there is documents --

QUESTION: I’m looking at --

MS. PSAKI: -- that are submitted to Ban Ki-moon. There is a decision that will be made by member organizations. I don’t think that’s an accurate interpretation of where things stand.

QUESTION: Well, I think the decision has already been made. I mean, the letter from the president of the court to President Abbas says that, “I confirm receipt,” and here – and basically you’re in, and then he also says that they confirm receipt of a letter that the Palestinians have sent to them giving the ICC jurisdiction back to June – just before the Gaza war – back to June of 2014. Do you have any opinion about that, and if – even if you do, does it make any difference?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let us take a closer look at that, because that’s not my understanding of where – the status of where things are at this point in the decision making.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: Okay, last one. Go ahead.

 

 

Marie Harf, Deputy Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC January 13, 2015 MIDDLE EAST PEACE

 

QUESTION: I’ve been wanting to ask about the ICC.

MS. HARF: Okay. Go on.

QUESTION: Yesterday, President Obama spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he told him that they disagree that – with the Palestinian effort at the ICC, of course.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: But he also said that they are not eligible for that. But --

MS. HARF: They’re not what? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: They’re not eligible. The Palestinians are not --

MS. HARF: Eligible, yes. Sorry.

QUESTION: Eligible, excuse me. Not eligible, okay.

MS. HARF: Not eligible, yes.

QUESTION: Not – that’s what I said. Okay. I’m not being legible, I guess. All right, so – he say that they are not. So --

MS. HARF: And that’s our position.

QUESTION: And that’s your position. But the United Nations seems to disagree. They say that they do have a right to --

MS. HARF: Well, the view of the United States is the Palestinians have not yet established a state.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: So neither the steps they have taken, nor the actions the UN Secretariat has taken that we’ve talked about a lot in this room, warrant the conclusion the Palestinians have established a state or have the legal competencies necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Rome statute. That is our legal position here.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. But they can, actually, through the avenue of the (inaudible) Geneva Convention they can actually pursue that.

MS. HARF: Well, we do not believe that they have taken the steps necessary.

QUESTION: Because conquering a country cannot change the demographics and the geography of the conquered territory --

MS. HARF: Our position is what it is.

QUESTION: -- and that would be a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

MS. HARF: I don’t have anything more for you, Said.

Let’s go to the back if someone who –

 

Jen Psaki Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC January 5, 2015 MIDDLE EAST PEACE

QUESTION: Right. So there was quite a bit that happened over the holiday season, but I want to focus on – first, at least – on the Middle East and on the Palestinian move to join the ICC. You or the building has said that you don’t think it’s a – you think it’s counterproductive, it’s not a good move, and it will have implications for aid. I’m just wondering what those implications are, what you’re planning to do to respond, and when we might see that – such a response.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, since we haven’t had the opportunity to all be together, let me just repeat that we’re deeply troubled by the Palestinian action regarding the ICC. Hard as it is, all sides need to find a way to work constructively and cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence, and find a path forward. This action is entirely counterproductive and does nothing to further the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a sovereign and independent state. It badly damages the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace.

The Secretary has been closely engaged with the parties, as have the leadership on the ground, and the focus right now is to continue to encourage both sides – we’ll reiterate that we strongly oppose actions taken by both parties; obviously, I talked a little bit about the ICC action, but there are others we can talk about from the other side – and to reiterate that constructive engagement and lowering tensions is the only way to move forward to a more peaceful environment.

Now, as you noted, and as I think my colleague said last week, obviously there could be implications on assistance. There are a range of ways that could take place. Congress has a great deal of power in that regard, and that has been historically true. They are obviously watching closely what happens. I’m not going to get ahead of any action they may take. As you know, the Secretary of State also has a range of authorities, but I don’t have anything to preview for all of you today.

QUESTION: So it’s our understanding that the law written into the 2014 appropriations law, which then has been carried over – at least the language – carried over into the what was called the Cromnibus for fiscal 2015, says that aid to the Palestinians must be suspended, and there’s no waiver for it, if they initiate or support a case against Israel at the ICC. It doesn’t say anything about just – about the Palestinians joining it. So I’m wondering from your answer, are you saying that short of being legally required by the law to cut off aid, if the Palestinians initiate or support the case, that you might take action against the Palestinians with regard to aid simply for them joining the ICC?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we continually review our assistance to – around the world – to ensure it complies with the law. That certainly is the case as it relates to assistance to the Palestinians. I’d have to check on – specifically, I think you’re referring to the legal language in the bill, as I understand it, on waiver authority. I don’t believe that applies here, which is what you also just conveyed.

I don’t have anything else to preview for you. The next step would be Congress deciding what step or action they may take as it relates to assistance.

QUESTION: Well, are you saying that the Administration would not act against the Palestinians in terms of aid unless the law absolutely required it to do so?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get – obviously, we constantly review our actions, our assistance. Right now, our focus and the Secretary’s focus is on engaging with both parties. I don’t have anything else to preview for you.

QUESTION: All right. And then on the engagement, can you just say what the --

QUESTION: Actually, can I stick with the money?

QUESTION: Well --

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Oh --

QUESTION: I’d like to know though – the money apparently has come up in conversations the Secretary has had with both the Palestinians and the Israelis. Can you enlighten us as to who he’s spoken to and when about what’s going on or what your plans are going forward?

MS. PSAKI: He’s been engaged with both parties, as has our team been on the ground. Really I should say we’ve been engaged with both parties. He’s been a part of some of those conversations and some others have been through our ambassador and through our consul general on the ground. I don’t have anything else more to preview for you or outline for the specifics. Did you have an aid question?

QUESTION: Yeah. You said, and as you pointed out it was previously stated by your colleague over the holidays, that the decision to join the ICC could have implications for U.S. assistance to the Palestinians. Could continued Israeli settlement activity, which you say is a unilateral act and which you don’t like, also have implications for U.S. assistance to Israel?

MS. PSAKI: Well, these actions are actions that would be taken by Congress, so I suggest you direct your question to them.

QUESTION: No, I mean, you were just very careful in answering Matt’s questions to not take a position on whether or not you would act vis-a-vis assistance to the Palestinians only if required to do so by law, i.e. by Congress. You’ve clearly, in your previous answers – and you also pointed out that the Secretary of State has some authority and jurisdiction and flexibility here. So --

MS. PSAKI: Depending on the case, as you well know.

QUESTION: Right. So – but is what you are saying is that it could have implications solely as a function of congressional action?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t --

QUESTION: Or could it have implications as a result of the authority that the Secretary of State himself and the Administration have?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what I was referring to there is waiver authority, which when Congress takes an action, obviously, there are occasions and certain laws where the Secretary can use waiver authority. I don’t have anything to preview for you in terms of that. I was just giving you the broad overview of the law.

QUESTION: So the implications or the consequences that the Palestinian action could have with regard to U.S. assistance to the Palestinians, from your point of view, solely relate to congressional requirements in that regard?

MS. PSAKI: I didn’t state that. Obviously --

QUESTION: I’m asking, I’m asking.

MS. PSAKI: I wasn’t stating that. What I said was we constantly review our assistance; I don’t have anything to preview for you in terms of that assistance. We clearly do see a benefit in the U.S. assistance that we do provide and have provided to the Palestinian Authority. It’s played a valuable role in promoting stability and prosperity, not just for Palestinians but for the region.

QUESTION: Well, I guess the fundamental question is: Why, if it is not solely related to congressional action, to the legal framework within which you operate, if it is perhaps also a function of the Administration’s authority and policy decisions on their own, why shouldn’t unilateral Israeli actions also potentially be subject to diminution in U.S. assistance?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Why should it only be the Palestinian --

MS. PSAKI: -- let me try to unwind this a little bit.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Overall, as you know, funding goes through Congress. They make decisions about what funding they will move forward on and not. That is the case here as well. So what I’m implying there, and you all know, is they are also watching and will make decisions accordingly. There are steps, depending on what it is, that the Secretary of State can take. But overall, the first step would be Congress.

QUESTION: So – but it – I don’t understand why you won’t then address hard-on the straightforward question, which is whether the consequences for the Palestinians or the Israelis are solely a function of what Congress does.

MS. PSAKI: I think I conveyed that we review it and there are a range of steps that we can take. But there’s a lot of different components and technical details here, so I’m just not going to go through every specific. And more importantly --

QUESTION: But I’m not asking you to.

MS. PSAKI: Let me finish.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: More importantly, our focus right now is on engaging with both parties. I’m not going to stand here from the podium and preview or discuss internal discussions if we were having them because there’s no benefit in that.

QUESTION: Right. But there is a question of whether or not there’s a double standard vis-a-vis the treatment of unilateral actions by either of the two parties to this dispute.

MS. PSAKI: But we’re talking about what’s legally required in a congressional bill as it relates to the Palestinian funding.

QUESTION: And Congress can apply whatever conditions it wishes or does not wish to, to either side, and there are no conditions that I’m aware of imposed on the state of Israel. So I get that. What I still don’t understand, though, is why you are not able to state categorically – if what you’re saying is right, that all you’re talking about here is congressional action – why you won’t say, “Look, we’ll do whatever the law obliges us to, but that’s it. We’re not looking at other things with regard to the money.”

MS. PSAKI: Because, Arshad, I’m not going to preview or discuss internal discussions. I conveyed to you what our focus is on, and beyond that I don’t have anything further to add.

QUESTION: One other one on this, if I may.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary sought to dissuade the Palestinian Authority from undertaking all of the subsequent steps, of which I think there are two, regarding the deposit of the instrument, the document under which they sign the Rome Statute, et cetera? Is the Secretary making an effort, given how concerned you are about this, to dissuade the Palestinians from moving forward? Because as I understand it, there is at least a 60-day or so period during which they would need to make additional actions. Are you trying to forestall them, forestall that, trying to prevent them from doing that?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve certainly conveyed at high levels our view on the ICC action, and obviously, we’d like to prevent it from moving forward.

QUESTION: Jen, can I just find out when was the last time that the Secretary spoke with either the Palestinian president and/or Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MS. PSAKI: He spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend. We’ve been engaged from our team on the ground with President Abbas. I don’t have an exact day on that, but it’s been recently.

QUESTION: And just so that – I want to make sure that I’ve understood this correctly.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: In the specific case of the Palestinian Authority going to the ICC – seeking to join the ICC, does the Secretary have a waiver for that or not? Matt seems to suggest he doesn’t, but can he exercise a waiver to any congressional action that’s taken as a result of that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what Matt is referring to is specifically how the law is written, which I’d encourage anyone to look at --

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I’ve been --

MS. PSAKI: -- which is stating about action at the ICC --

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Not – okay.

MS. PSAKI: And in terms of whether a waiver would apply there, I’d have to check with our team. I don’t believe it would in this case, but I’m happy to check with them and see.

QUESTION: And on the actual specifics, at what point would the – would any action, congressional action, kick in? Just joining, or would it have to be actual action?

MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, Congress has the ability to act in many ways about assistance. Beyond that, I would point you to them and those who work on the appropriations committee and fund these type of programs.

QUESTION: Okay. And I just wondered if you had any reaction to the news yesterday of Israel freezing some millions of dollars, about $127 million in tax revenues which they had been due to transfer to the Palestinian Authority, as a response to the move by the Palestinians?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well, we obviously saw the announcement yesterday. We call on both sides to avoid actions that raise tensions and make it more difficult to return to direct negotiations. Obviously, that would – this action would qualify in that category.

As we’ve said consistently, the path to a two-state solution with a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the two sides. And certainly, we’ve been – this is one of the topics we’ve been engaging with the parties on.

QUESTION: So you’re opposed to this. You’re opposed to the idea of the Israelis freezing the taxes --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re opposed to any actions that raise tensions, and obviously, this is one that raises tensions.

QUESTION: Can you just elaborate a little on what the discussions between the Secretary and the Israeli prime minister have been about? I mean, you’ve spoken about a law that has congressional restrictions on funding. That’s U.S. law, and we’re talking about a Palestinian action. So what does the discussions back and forth with the Israeli prime minister pertain to?

MS. PSAKI: Broadly speaking, Brad, I mean, the discussions are about where we go from here. And obviously, the Secretary reiterates our strong opposition to actions that both parties have taken, the desire to see a reduction in tensions. Beyond that, I’m just not going to outline their private conversations more specifically.

QUESTION: Are you talking to the Israelis about possible U.S. consequences for the Palestinians?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to outline it more specifically than what I’ve just done.

QUESTION: But I don’t --

MS. PSAKI: They speak on a frequent basis.

QUESTION: But I don’t quite under – well, more frequently sometimes than others.

MS. PSAKI: True.

QUESTION: I don’t quite understand the Israeli role in what seems to be a Palestinian action and U.S. law. How does Israel figure into that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, just to be clear, I mean, the reason I answered the ICC question was that it was the first question that was asked. But there are obviously steps that have been taken by both sides that have warranted conversations with both sides, and it will require both sides taking actions to reduce the tensions. So it’s not just about specific day-by-day steps; it’s about the larger picture and how to move forward.

QUESTION: And what, in this case, would he have cautioned Israel against or --

MS. PSAKI: Well, clearly, freezing tax revenues is just one step. But obviously, this is an ongoing discussion and one that they have on a regular basis, and they’re talking about the larger picture.

QUESTION: So are you asking the Israelis to unfreeze the tax revenues now?

MS. PSAKI: We’re certainly conveying, Said, that this is a step that is one that raises tensions, as others do. And I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: Okay. Now tell me on the money, if once Congress --

MS. PSAKI: On tax revenues or us?

QUESTION: No, on the aid.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Once Congress decide to cut off aid, how is that – does that affect whatever in the pipeline now? How does it – how does it work out?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to address a hypothetical. Obviously, that decision hasn’t been made. As I mentioned, with waiver authority I don’t believe it applies in this case, but I’m happy to discuss with our legal team and see if we can get you a more specific answer.

QUESTION: I wanted to just quickly follow up on a couple of things. Now, on the principle of the ICC, why not allow both the Palestinians and the Israelis to go to the ICC to file criminal charges against their own – whoever they accuse?

MS. PSAKI: Because we think the most productive path forward, Said, would be direct negotiations to address the issues that have been challenging for decades.

QUESTION: But in your opinion – allow me, indulge me, if (inaudible).

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: In your opinion, these negotiations that have been conducted over a period of 21, 22 years and so on, they really have not borne fruit, so to speak. Shouldn’t there be another alternative such as the United Nations, to which you are a party and to which you have advocated many issues, through the Security Council and through the United Nations, similar issues? Why is this --

MS. PSAKI: We’ve been pretty clear that unilateral action, in our view, is not the right path forward.

QUESTION: Why is the Palestinian action through the United Nation is a unilateral action? In fact, it’s an international action, isn’t it?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve been very consistent in this – in our position on this, Said. I don’t think I need to repeat it. There’s a lot going on in the world. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. (Inaudible) with a couple of issues.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Also, there was – I know that Jeff addressed it last week on the attack on – by settlers on the – at the consulate. Have you issued a statement on that? Was there a statement issued by the State Department?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve provided a comment to many people who have asked. I’m happy to repeat it if you’d like me to.

QUESTION: Are you likely to issue a statement on that?

MS. PSAKI: I think we often respond to reporter inquiries. If you’d like, I can do that from here now, Said.

QUESTION: Do you know if there’s anything more to say about that?

MS. PSAKI: There isn’t anything new to add, no.

QUESTION: So the investigation is – do you know if there was --

MS. PSAKI: We’re still working with Israeli authorities on their investigation.

QUESTION: Do you know if the video had been – the statement or what Jeff said last week said that you were providing or offering to provide the Israeli authorities with videotape of the incident. Presumably, that was taken by U.S. officials who were in this convoy. Is that correct? And do you know if that’s actually been turned over to the --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that. We – I’m happy to check and see if there’s any update on it.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: And then just one – just two --

MS. PSAKI: Let’s just finish this and then we can go.

QUESTION: Just two very briefly: So on the tax money, why shouldn’t Israel withhold tax money if the Palestinians take a step to file – bring war crimes charges against them and – at the ICC?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what we’re trying to avoid here, Matt, is a back-and-forth tit-for-tat, and we’re trying to focus --

QUESTION: Well, it’s a little late.

MS. PSAKI: -- the direction in a more positive direction. So --

QUESTION: It’s a little – I mean, it’s a little late for that. If the Palestinians follow through with their threat to go ahead and file this – these charges, would you still call for the Israelis to release this money?

MS. PSAKI: I think I made clear that we view any actions that reduce – that increase tensions as being unproductive, and that is the case on both sides.

QUESTION: But there’s a question of which is the spark that leads to the other side --

MS. PSAKI: I can’t speak to what the spark is. Obviously, there have been actions by both sides in the past couple of months that may not be cause and effect, but still are unproductive.

QUESTION: And then the last thing you said, as it regards to U.S. aid to the Palestinians, you said that it played a big role in providing stability and prosperity for not only the Palestinians, but for the region. And I’m just wondering if you had really – if that – how stable and prosperous is the West Bank and Gaza, and how stable and prosperous is the whole region? It seems to me not prosperous and not stable at all.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, obviously, that’s one of the reasons why we’ve been providing assistance, to try to provide additional stability. But clearly, we’ve seen a benefit of that, and that was the point I was making.

QUESTION: You’ve seen the benefit in the region from aid to the Palestinians?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, I think the point is this is one of the most tumultuous places in the world. We all know that. This is --

QUESTION: Right. So throwing money at it, though, hasn’t necessarily made it more stable or prosperous, right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, you can’t disprove a negative, so if we hadn’t provided assistance, I’d like to see the AP analysis and see what that would mean.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you think that Israel is within its right to withhold that money, considering that’s really Palestinian money?

MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve addressed this, Said. Do we have any more on Israel? Go ahead, Pam.

QUESTION: Yes. Broadly speaking, the unilateral action by the Palestinians – first with the UN resolution, now the ICC bid – seems to indicate a higher level of Palestinian frustration. What is the United States doing, what steps is the U.S. taking to perhaps rethink its policy on engagement with Israel’s and the Palestinians because of these increased tensions?

MS. PSAKI: Well, when you say “rethink our policy of engagement,” can you spell that out a little bit more? What do you mean by that?

QUESTION: Is the U.S. considering any new strategies to move the process forward?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think our view is that, as I mentioned in the beginning, that engagement with the parties is something that needs to continue. They need to make the choices themselves about what steps they’re going to take, but reducing tensions, taking steps to de-escalate continues to be the only path forward. Obviously, we’re not at a point now where we are having a discussion about a peace process, but we continue to believe that that’s the only way to address these issues over the long term.

QUESTION: Do you still consider it feasible that you could have some sort of a track going on in terms of the negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis between now and the election? Is the United States in a position to actually get something like this going?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, as I’ve said many times in response to similar questions you’ve asked, there – it’s obviously up to the parties. We certainly understand there’s an election going on in Israel. We don’t have any prediction of the future, but what we’re talking about is the long term and how to resolve the issues over the long term.

 

Position d’Israël

MFA - 17 Jan 2015

The decision by the International Criminal Court in The Hague is a disgraceful decision whose sole purpose is to harm Israel's ability to defend itself against terrorism.

 Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman

(Communicated by the Foreign Minister's Bureau)
In response to the decision by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman stated that this is a disgraceful decision whose sole purpose is to harm Israel's ability to defend itself against terrorism.
According to FM Liberman, that same court which after 200,000 people killed in Syria did not see fit to intervene, or in Libya or elsewhere, has seen fit to "examine" the most moral army in the world, in a decision based entirely on anti-Israeli political motives. Even the seeming even-handedness whereby both sides will be "examined" comes merely to cloak the aim of maligning Israel. It is clearly impossible to place in the same equation the IDF, which does everything to prevent harm to innocent people, and the terror organizations which fire from within civilian population centers in order to harm civilians. "We cannot accept this, and I will recommend that Israel not cooperate with this 'examination'," said Liberman.

 

PM Netanyahu on decision of the ICC prosecutor

17 Jan 2015

It is the democracy of Israel, a world leader in fighting terrorism, which is to be hauled to the dock in The Hague, while the terrorist war criminals of Hamas are the ones who are going to be pressing the charges.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)
 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this evening (Saturday, 17 January 2015) has issued the following statement in response to the decision of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to open a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine :
 
Israel rejects the absurd decision of the ICC prosecutor. It's absurd for the ICC to ignore international law and agreements, under which the Palestinians don't have a state and can only get one through direct negotiations with Israel. 
 
The rules of the ICC are clear:
No state 
No standing 
No case.
 
It's absurd for the ICC to go after Israel, which upholds the highest standards of international law. Our actions are subject to the constant and careful review of Israel's world-renowned and utterly independent legal system. 
 
But this decision is even more preposterous given that Israel is legitimately defending itself against Palestinian terrorists who routinely commit multiple war crimes. They deliberately fire thousands of rockets at our civilians, while hiding behind Palestinian civilians whom they use a human shield. 
 
And here's the ultimate folly of this decision - It is the democracy of Israel, a world leader in fighting terrorism, which is to be hauled to the dock in The Hague, while the terrorist war criminals of Hamas are the ones who are going to be pressing the charges. I won't be surprised if ISIS, al-Qaida and Hezbollah follow suit. See, Hamas has already announced that they will join their Palestinian partner, President Abbas, in filing complaints against Israel as a result of this decision. 
 
So we see here something truly tragic. The lofty goals of the ICC are being turned upside-down. 
 
The court was founded to prevent a repeat of history's worst crimes, foremost among them the genocide of six million Jews.
 
Now the Palestinians are cynically manipulating the ICC to deny the Jewish state the right to defend itself against the very war crimes and the very terror that the court was established to prevent.

 

MFA - Behind the Headlines: PA appeal to the ICC

04 Jan 2015

Israel expects the International Criminal Court to unequivocally reject the PA’s hypocritical request because the Palestinian Authority is not a state. Furthermore, the PA is allied with Hamas, a terrorist organization that commits war crimes. 

The International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statute, is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. The ICC is an independent international organization, and is not part of the United Nations system. Its seat is at The Hague in the Netherlands. 

The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries. 122 countries are currently states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In 2002, the United States and Israel, which had earlier signed the Statute, informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their earlier signature.

A 2009 declaration by the Palestinian Authority accepting the jurisdiction of the Court was deemed invalid by the ICC Prosecutor in early 2012 as he did not consider Palestine a "state" for the purposes of the Rome Statute. The Prosecutor did not see any basis to reassess the application after a vote in the United Nations General Assembly later in 2012 which recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state. In December 2014, the Palestinians received official recognition as an observer at the opening session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute. 

On Friday evening, January 2, 2015, the Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations Riyad Mansour submitted to the UN offices in New York the request to join a number of international treaties, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at the Hague, signed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on December 31. The submission of the signed documents marks the final step in the process of establishing its membership in the court.

Israel expects the International Criminal Court to unequivocally reject the PA’s hypocritical request because the Palestinian Authority is not a state. Furthermore, the PA is allied with Hamas, a terrorist organization that commits war crimes. This step proves clearly that the PA is inclined towards continuing the conflict and not negotiating with Israel. An agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will be achieved only through bilateral negotiations and not by unilateral dictates.

The ones who should be afraid of legal proceedings are the leaders of the PA who, in the framework of the unity government with Hamas, are collaborating with a professed terrorist organization. Hamas, like the Islamic State, commits war crimes such as shooting at civilians from within population centers.

The PA appeal to the ICC is a flagrant violation of the agreements that the PA signed with Israel with the backing of the international community.

Israel is a law-abiding state with a moral army that upholds international law and knows how to check itself in accordance with the highest standards. Israel will defend its soldiers as they defend the state. Israel will rebuff any attempt to force dictates upon it, just as the Palestinian appeal to the UN Security Council was rebuffed.
 

Israel and the ICC - Background

Upon its signature to the Rome Statute on December 31, 2000, Israel issued the following declaration:

“Being an active consistent supporter of the concept of an International Criminal Court, and its realization in the form of the Rome Statute, the Government of the State of Israel is proud to thus express its acknowledgment of the importance, and indeed indispensability, of an effective court for the enforcement of the rule of law and the prevention of impunity.

As one of the originators of the concept of an International Criminal Court, Israel, through its prominent lawyers and statesmen, has, since the early 1950’s, actively participated in all stages of the formation of such a court. Its representatives, carrying in both heart and mind collective, and sometimes personal, memories of the holocaust - the greatest and most heinous crime to have been committed in the history of mankind - enthusiastically, with a sense of acute sincerity and seriousness, contributed to all stages of the preparation of the Statute. Responsibly, possessing the same sense of mission, they currently support the work of the ICC Preparatory Commission.

At the 1998 Rome Conference, Israel expressed its deep disappointment and regret at the insertion into the Statute of formulations tailored to meet the political agenda of certain states. Israel warned that such an unfortunate practice might reflect on the intent to abuse the Statute as a political tool. Today, in the same spirit, the Government of the State of Israel signs the Statute while rejecting any attempt to interpret provisions thereof in a politically motivated manner against Israel and its citizens. The Government of Israel hopes that Israel’s expressions of concern of any such attempt would be recorded in history as a warning against the risk of politicization, that might undermine the objectives of what is intended to become a central impartial body, benefiting mankind as a whole.

Nevertheless, as a democratic society, Israel has been conducting ongoing political, pand academic debates concerning the ICC and its significance in the context of international law and the international community. The Court’s essentiality - as a vital means of ensuring that criminals who commit genuinely heinous crimes will be duly brought to justice, while other potential offenders of the fundamental principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience will be properly deterred - has never ceased to guide us. Israel’s signature of the Rome Statute will, therefore, enable it to morally identify with this basic idea, underlying the establishment of the Court. to guide us. Israel’s signature of the Rome Statute will, therefore, enable it to morally identify with this basic idea, underlying the establishment of the Court.

Today, [the Government of Israel is]  honoured to express [its] sincere hopes that the Court, guided by the cardinal judicial principles of objectivity and universality, will indeed serve its noble and meritorious objectives.”

On August 28, 2002, Israel informed the UN Secretary General that it no longer intends to become a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

 

Propos attribués au Ministre des affaires étrangères au sujet de la Cour pénale internationale

Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Sunday.

"We will demand of our friends in Canada, in Australia and in Germany simply to stop funding it," he told Israel Radio.

"This body represents no one. It is a political body," he said. "There are a quite a few countries - I've already taken telephone calls about this - that also think there is no justification for this body's existence."

Note : quelque chose est faux dans ce propos rapporté. Ou le Ministre n'a pas dit cela, ou bien il n'a pas tenu ce langage à ses interlocuteurs étrangers ou bien encore ces derniers ne l'ont pas approuvé.

 

PM Netanyahu on PA decision to accede to international treaties

01 Jan 2015

It is the Palestinian Authority - which is in a unity government with Hamas, an avowed terrorist organization that, like ISIS, perpetrates war crimes - that needs to be concerned about the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu

(Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)
 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Wednesday, 31 December 2014) commented as follows on the decision of the Palestinian Authority to accede to various international treaties:
 
"It is the Palestinian Authority - which is in a unity government with Hamas, an avowed terrorist organization that, like ISIS, perpetrates war crimes - that needs to be concerned about the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
 
We will take steps in response and we will defend the soldiers of the IDF, the most moral army in the world.
 
We will rebuff this additional attempt to force diktat on us just like werebuffed the Palestinian appeal to the UN Security Council.

We expect the International Criminal Court to reject outright the Palestinian Authority's hypocritical act because the Palestinian Authority is not a state. It is an entity in alliance with a terrorist organization, Hamas, which perpetrates war crimes. The State of Israel is a nation of laws with a moral army that upholds international law. We will defend the soldiers of the IDF just as they defend us." 

Communiqué du gouvernement du 18 janvier

18 Jan 2015

​At the weekly Cabinet meeting today (Sunday, 18 January 2015):
 
1. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following remarks:
 
"The decision by the prosecutor at the International Criminal Courtto begin an enquiry against the State of Israel is the height of hypocrisy and the opposite of justice. I already encountered such phenomena during my years of public service representing the State of Israel both as ambassador to the UN and as prime minister, but this decision by the prosecutor is in a category of its own. It gives legitimacy to international terrorism. We will fight it every way possible and we will also recruit others to fight this absurdity, and they are already being recruited. We will not allow IDF soldiers to face international tribunals. I would also like to say that these steps will not deter us from doing what is necessary to defend the State of Israel and its citizens.
 
One of the ways to counter these crude steps, of course, is to strengthen the state and one of the things I am doing is to strengthen immigration to Israel. Today, we will accept a report on the continued removal of impediments to the immigration of Jews from France, Europe and wherever they may be. We also intend to submit at our next meeting a decision to facilitate this implementation.
 
An additional step, of course, is to strengthen the Israeli economy. Today, we will welcome Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who is arriving at the head of a large delegation of 100 government officials and 100 heads of leading Japanese global companies. I remind you that the Japanese economy is the third largest in the world and there is a common desire, which found expression in my visit to Japan several months ago, to tighten relations, increase trade and increase investments between Israel and Japan. This fits in with my clear vision to vary our markets. This found expression in mytrip to China one and a half years ago and in my meeting at the recent UN General Assembly with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as well as in the current visit. This is part of Israel's opening to eastern markets. I emphasize eastern markets not because we want to give up on other markets but we certainly want to decrease our dependence on certain markets in Western Europe. Western Europe is undergoing a wave of Islamization, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. These waves are washing over it and we would like to ensure that the State of Israel will have varied markets around the world. We would also like to decrease cartelization.
 
Of course, we are also advancing the development of Israel in other areas. What interests Japan and also interests other economies is technological Israel. Today, we will receive a report on actions to advance the digital Israel. This is in parallel with our major efforts in transportation infrastructure. We are also building rapid communications infrastructures that are also reducing the social periphery and giving to every boy and girl in Israel access to the world of tomorrow.
 
In conclusion, we are also strengthening the State of Israel and all sectors of the population in that we are concerned about the minimum wage. We first raised the minimum wage in 2011, if I am not mistaken, to NIS 4,300, and now we are raising it again to NIS 5,000. I think that this reflects our desire to help all parts of society and I am pleased that it is being done in agreement with employers and workers. This is important for the State of Israel and we certainly welcome it."
 
2. The Cabinet discussed and approved the draft 2015 Minimum Wage Law (Raising the Minimum Wage – Emergency Ordinance).

3. The Cabinet approved the following Foreign Service appointments:
 
- Boaz Rodkin – Ambassador to Albania;
- Yitzhak Carmel Kagan – Ambassador to Turkmenistan;
- Eitan Levon – Consul-General in Houston; and
- Moshe Sermoneta – Ambassador to Colombia.
 
4. The Cabinet discussed and approved budgetary allocations from various ministries for the 2015 UEFA European Women's Under-19 Championship.  
 
The Cabinet welcomes the UEFA decision to hold the tournament in Israel, from 15-28 July 2015.
 
5. Yair Shindel, head of the Digital Israel staff in the Prime Minister's Office, briefed ministers on the goals of the Digital Israel initiative.
 
6. Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption Minister Sofa Landver, Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption Ministry Director General Oded Forer and Prime Minister's Office Director General Harel Locker briefed ministers on the implementation of the Cabinet's 22 June 2014 decision vis-à-vis encouraging immigration from Europe   and on the implementation of its 23 November 2014 decision vis-à-vis easing the absorption of new immigrants into the labor market.  
 
PMO Director General Locker informed ministers that he was coordinating staff work on formulating an additional draft decision on advancing policy regarding new immigrants and added that the proposal would be submitted for Cabinet approval in the near future.
 
7. The Cabinet marked Hebrew Language Day. 

Note. Cette déclaration confirme la crainte de l'escalade suscitée par l'inititive palestinienne. L'Europe derrière la CPI est évidemment visée. On voit notamment que le gouvernement israélien cherche à réduire la forte dépendance économique du pays à l'égard de l'Europe. Ce ne sera pas facile, ni immédiat. Le thème de l'immigration juive sera aussi exploité. Evidemment la France, second pays de la diaspora après les Etats-unis, respecte sans restriction le droit au retour et la liberté de choix des Français israélites, la limite étant que l'on n'exporte pas en France le climat délétère d'Israël. Pour une vision juste de cette question, les propos du Président d'Israël :

« Il a été beaucoup dit depuis les meurtres, sur la question de l'immigration en Israël de la judaïcité française. Mes chers frères et soeurs, citoyens juifs de France, vous êtes les bienvenus. Notre pays est le vôtre, notre maison est la vôtre, et nous aspirons à tous vous voir vous installer en Sion.

Cependant, votre retour au foyer de vos ancêtres ne doit pas résulter de la détresse, du désespoir, de la destruction, des affres de la terreur et de la peur. La terreur ne nous a jamais mis à terre, et nous ne voulons pas que la terreur vous soumette. La terre d'Israël est la terre du choix. Nous voulons que vous choisissiez Israël par amour pour Israël.

Chères familles, à côté des tombes de ceux que vous aimiez, nous jurons de continuer à nous battre pour votre droit de vivre en Juifs, où que vous soyez. »

YNetNews.com

La CPI est devenue une cible politique, mais le seul terrain de contestation possible de la CPI est celui de l'argumentation juridique. L'imprécation ne sert pas la cause d'israël. On respecte la justice, si l'on veut être respecté.

Ministère de la défense

Operation Protective Edge: Examinations and Investigation

07/12/2014 |  Decisions of the IDF Military Advocate General regarding Exceptional Incidents that Occurred during Operation 'Protective Edge' – Update No. 2

Additional Information

10/09/2014 |  Operation Protective Edge: Examinations and Investigation

Additional Information

10/09/2014 |  Operation Protective Edge: Update re Individual Incidents

Additional Information

 

__________________________________________________________