This article analyses the scope of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the Israeli settlement enterprise in the West Bank. The author has found that this scope differs fundamentally between acts of direct transfer and indirect transfer because of Israel's status as a non-member state of the Rome Statute of the ICC and the specific nature of Article 8(2)(b)(viii). Whereas procedural arguments relating to third party rights do not prove to be valid jurisdictional obstacles, the Court's temporal and territorial jurisdiction could nevertheless be limited to acts of direct population transfer committed after April 2015. In conclusion, the article argues that the most promising strategy for the Office of the Prosecutor would be to focus on recent large-scale instances of direct transfer.

中文翻译：

---

法庭上不太可能的一天？根据《罗马规约》起诉以色列定居点的法律挑战

本文分析了国际刑事法院（ICC）对约旦河西岸以色列定居点企业的管辖范围。作者发现，由于以色列是《国际刑事法院罗马规约》的非成员国以及第 8(2)(b)(viii) 条的特殊性质，因此直接转让行为和间接转让行为之间的这一范围存在根本区别。 . 尽管与第三方权利有关的程序论据并未被证明是有效的管辖障碍，但法院的时间和地域管辖权仍可能仅限于 2015 年 4 月之后实施的直接人口转移行为。 总之，本文认为最有希望的战略检察官办公室将重点关注最近的大规模直接移交事件。