Abstract

In December 2019, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court concluded her preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine, determining there is a reasonable basis to initiate an investigation into the situation. Instead of doing so, she first decided to seek a ruling from the Pre-Trial Chamber on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction, specifically aimed at confirming her view that the ‘territory’ over which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction comprises the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). This article focuses on the amici curiae observations and other communications made by eight states parties in the proceedings — Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and Uganda. A critical examination of these observations and communications reveals that they did not answer the question posed by the OTP, but rather advanced a number of strained arguments aimed, inter alia, at impugning the very notion that the Court has any jurisdiction at all on the basis that Palestine is not a state. When juxtaposed against the ostensible commitment of these states parties to the object and purpose of the Statute, their observations and other communications reveal a conspicuous hypocrisy. If accepted by the Court, these observations and communications would operate to not only affirm the continued contingency of the state of Palestine on the international plane, but, even worse, to shield persons known to have committed or be committing crimes of the gravest concern to the international community with impunity.

中文翻译：

---

例外情况对巴勒斯坦情况下《罗马规约》缔约国对《阿米奇古里亚观察》和其他来文的批判性思考

摘要

2019年12月，国际刑事法院检察官结束了对巴勒斯坦局势的初步审查，确定有合理的基础开展对巴勒斯坦局势的调查。她没有这样做，而是首先决定向预审分庭寻求关于法院领土管辖权范围的裁决，特别是要确认她的观点，即法院可以行使其管辖权的“领土”包括被占领的巴勒斯坦人。区域（OPT）。本文重点介绍Amici Curiae八个缔约国在诉讼中的意见和其他来文-澳大利亚，奥地利，巴西，加拿大，捷克共和国，德国，匈牙利和乌干达。对这些意见和来文进行的严格审查表明，它们没有回答OTP提出的问题，而是提出了一些紧张的论点，这些论点尤其是有损于法院完全具有任何管辖权这一观念。巴勒斯坦不是一个国家。当这些缔约国对《规约》的目的和宗旨的表面上的承诺并列时，它们的意见和其他来文显示出明显的伪善。如果法院接受，这些意见和来文不仅将申明巴勒斯坦国在国际飞机上的持续应变，而且，