On May 20th 2024, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Chief Prosecutor, Karim Khan KC applied to a panel of judges for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. Khan said that his office held evidence that Israel had, ‘intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival,’ in contravention of international criminal law and the laws of conflict.
The international response to this application, especially by Israel’s allies, has been one of outrage and legal efforts in opposition, with the strongest condemnation coming from the US and UK; however, the political landscape has changed dramatically since May, and so too has the official position of global governments.
In May, the UK’s Conservative Government opposed the application as ‘deeply unhelpful’ and the then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that the warrants, also requested for Hamas leaders, implied a ‘moral equivalence’ between Israel and Hamas. The UK then applied to the ICC for permission to submit legal arguments to the judges considering the application against their issue. It is worth noting that the US, which is not a member of the ICC and thus cannot make applications to it, strongly opposes the warrants and unofficially expects the UK to look after its interests in the Court.
The change of government after the General Election in July, which saw Keir Starmer’s Labour party win government, resulted in a change to the UK’s position on the arrest warrant application. Whilst no longer opposing the application, the government still does not support it; instead it has said it is a ‘matter for the court’ and it will not make any submissions in support of a particular outcome.
This shift in foreign policy has altered the dynamic of the UK’s relationship with Israel: during an August visit to Jerusalem, Foreign Secretary David Lammy was declined a meeting with Netanyahu. This followed restored funding to the UN Palestine Relief Agency that had been suspended by Sunak in January 2024, and Starmer stating that Palestine has an ‘undeniable right’ to be recognised as part of a peace process.
The motivations that underpin this reassessment of the UK’s position are closer to home than the political bidding of the US and the legal debate taking place at the ICC: the political landscape of the summer has been volatile, and the new government needs to establish itself quickly and effectively.
The riots that swept the UK in August presented the largest test of the criminal justice system for a decade and sparked widespread discussion about the status of the rule of law. There was considerable emphasis on courts having the power to hold those who had committed crimes to be charged and tried, and then face the appropriate consequences. The government will be acutely aware that any attempt to interfere with the work of a court will fly in the face of this message and will raise concerns about its commitment to due process and transparency, and not blocking it when it is politically sensitive.
The Labour Party has historically attracted voters from a diverse cross-section of the British electorate, but the support it previously enjoyed from Muslim voters deteriorated at the last election. Prominent Labour MPs lost their seats to candidates who are expressly in support of Palestine, and many others with comfortable majorities saw these reduced. Ayoub Khan, the Independent MP for Perry Barr, overturned a Labour majority of 22,000, with Gaza being the ‘prime factor’ in the election.
In Opposition, the Party did not call for a ceasefire, and has not done so in government, but it will be telling as the new government settles in, whether the recent election result reorients policy in an attempt to win back the support of a disgruntled and influential voter group. Then again, a party plagued by a years-long antisemitism problem may be cautious to avoid a return to the divisions of the previous leadership.
The position of the UK during deliberations about the application may be of some influence on the final outcome; however, if warrants are issued, the UK would be legally obliged under the Rome Statute to comply and arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they stepped foot on British soil. The questions that will arise from such a decision deserve thorough treatment and the UK will play an important part in this: the powers and limitations of the ICC will have extended further than ever before, and its role in upholding international law will attract new attention.
Let the domestic political situation of a country not detract from the administration of justice, irrespective of those being investigated. Let the exercise of international law happen, uninhibited by self-motivated third parties. Let the focus never shift from all those suffering in a conflict about which they can do nothing and for which they did not ask.
Image by Number 10 via Wikimedia Commons