In April 2012, the former ICC Prosecutor Ocampo rejected Palestine’s declaration for accepting ICC jurisdiction. The prosecutor decided that only a “state” is eligible to accept ICC jurisdiction and Palestine was not a “state” according to the UN General Assembly. So after the UN General Assembly recognized the State of Palestine seven months later, Palestine, now eligible to accept ICC jurisdiction, resubmitted its declaration and acceded to the ICC Statute in early 2015. Incumbent Prosecutor Bensouda welcomed Palestine’s resubmission and confirmed that Palestine is considered a state from the date it was recognized by the UN General Assembly. This article examines the problems and implications of the prosecutors’ decision on Palestinian statehood, and ultimately suggests an alternative definition of “state” for the Rome Statute as a whole. In particular, this article acknowledges that, contrary to the prosecutor’s decision, a developed understanding of “state” within the other prescriptive areas of the Statute does not determine an entity’s statehood based on any formal recognition. This article also acknowledges a functional interpretation of “state” is often allowed for determining the scope of applicability of war crimes and the crime of aggression to include a non-recognized entity that exercises de facto governmental functions. Considering the usage of the term “state” in the Rome Statute as a whole, this article suggests that the definition of “state” should be based on the assessment about whether entities could be regarded as functionally equivalent to states that constitute the contextual elements of international crimes. This approach is in accordance with the broad framework of international law and practice, better serves the purpose of the Statute to end impunity of the most serious international crimes, and allows the prosecutor to focus on the criminal law, separating her office from political implications.

中文翻译：

---

为国际刑事法院的目的定义“国家”：巴勒斯坦裁决后面临的问题

2012年4月，前国际刑事法院检察官奥坎波驳回了巴勒斯坦接受国际刑事法院管辖权的声明。检察官决定，根据联合国大会的规定，只有“国家”才有资格接受国际刑事法院的管辖，而巴勒斯坦不是“国家”。因此，在联合国大会七个月后承认巴勒斯坦国后，现在有资格接受国际刑事法院管辖的巴勒斯坦重新提交了声明，并于 2015 年初加入了国际刑事法院规约。 现任检察官本苏达对巴勒斯坦的重新提交表示欢迎，并确认巴勒斯坦被视为一个自联合国大会承认之日起生效。本文考察了检察官关于巴勒斯坦建国决定的问题和影响，并最终为整个罗马规约提出了“国家”的替代定义。特别是，本文承认，与检察官的决定相反，在规约的其他规定领域内对“国家”的发展理解并不能根据任何正式承认来确定实体的国家地位。本文还承认，在确定战争罪和侵略罪的适用范围时，通常允许对“国家”进行功能性解释，以包括行使事实上的政府职能的未被承认的实体。考虑到《罗马规约》整体对“国家”一词的使用，本文建议“国家”的定义应基于对实体是否可以被视为在功能上等同于构成国家的上下文要素的国家的评估。国际罪行。