The International Criminal Court and Israel: Delayed Justice Amid Repeated Challenges Israel Resets the Case to Square One

On 23 September 2024, Israel submitted a formal challenge to the International Criminal Court (ICC), disputing the Court's jurisdiction over crimes committed within its scope. This objection was lodged under Article 19(2) of the Rome Statute, the legal framework governing the ICC's operations. The move represents an attempt by Israel to invalidate the Court’s jurisdiction, thereby halting or at least delaying the ongoing legal proceedings against it by claiming the Court lacks the legal authority to adjudicate the matter.

Article 19(2) allows any concerned party to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of a case. Such parties may include: the person accused or sought by the Court, the state where the alleged crime occurred, or the state of nationality of the accused. Israel, acting in its capacity as a concerned state, sought to disrupt the judicial process through this challenge— part of a broader legal strategy aimed at undermining the legitimacy of international legal proceedings against it.

On 21 November 2024, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued a decision rejecting Israel’s challenge filed under Article 19(2), affirming the Court’s jurisdiction over the situation despite Israel’s objections. This marked a reaffirmation of the Court’s authority to proceed with legal action related to the Palestinian situation.

However, Israel did not stop there. On 27 November 2024, it filed an appeal before the Appeals Chamber based on Article 82(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, which permits direct appeals on decisions concerning jurisdiction or admissibility. On the same day, Israel submitted an additional request under Article 82(1)(d), seeking leave to appeal in case its direct challenge under 82(1)(a) was not admitted. Article 82(1)(d) requires prior authorization from the Court to appeal a pre-trial decision,

provided the contested ruling significantly affects the rights of one of the parties or the fair and efficient conduct of the proceedings.

On 12 December 2024, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber decided to postpone its ruling on Israel’s request for leave to appeal under Article 82(1)(d), pending the Appeals Chamber’s decision on the direct appeal under Article 82(1)(a). The following day, 13 December 2024, Israel formally submitted its appellate brief, reaffirming its intent to overturn the Court’s rejection of its jurisdictional objection.

Eventually, on 24 April 2025, the Appeals Chamber issued its final decision, accepting Israel’s appeal under Article 82(1)(a), thereby overturning the prior ruling made under Article 19(2), which had rejected Israel’s jurisdictional challenge. As a result, the case was remanded to the Pre-Trial Chamber for reconsideration of the substance of Israel’s objection. Since the appeal was admitted directly under Article 82(1)(a), the Appeals Chamber deemed the request under Article 82(1)(d) moot and dismissed it as unnecessary.

In simplified terms, Israel sought to exclude the ICC from adjudicating the case by contesting its

legal jurisdiction. Although the Court initially rejected this challenge, Israel quickly appealed the decision. The Appeals Chamber eventually accepted the appeal, nullifying the original decision and returning the case to the Pre-Trial Chamber for reconsideration. Thus, the ICC has not abandoned the case but will revisit the jurisdictional matter based on the substance of Israel’s objection. The legal process remains ongoing, with no definitive resolution yet reached.

Fouad Baker

Palestinian jurist and political expert