There could be a question as to whether such an investigation would suffice given that Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. However I think the better view is that the principle of complementarity applies such that an investigation by the state (even if not a state party) should render the case inadmissible. (Note that this is a question of admissibility not a bar to jurisdiction)
Complementarity would apply if Israel had informed the ICC that it was investigating. In those circumstances the prosecutor will defer unless authorised by the Pre Trial Chamber to continue- see articles 17 and 18(2) of the Rome Statute.
There could be a question as to whether such an investigation would suffice given that Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. However I think the better view is that the principle of complementarity applies such that an investigation by the state (even if not a state party) should render the case inadmissible. (Note that this is a question of admissibility not a bar to jurisdiction)
Complementarity would apply if Israel had informed the ICC that it was investigating. In those circumstances the prosecutor will defer unless authorised by the Pre Trial Chamber to continue- see articles 17 and 18(2) of the Rome Statute.
Interesting piece in Wednesday's Daily Telegraph about the ICC decision
This one? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/21/british-lawyers-netanyahu-war-crimes-icc-amal-clooney/
Yes. Online 8pm on 21 May, but in print on page 4 of the Features section on Wednesday 22 May
Thanks. The writer seems to have quoted sources rather similar to mine and to have reached broadly similar conclusions.
When I read it, I thought it was plagiarism from your blog
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. We hacks all feed off each other. Sometimes we find we have spoken to the same people.
At least Joshua didn't call the ICC anti-Semitic unlike (if the news story is to be believed) Mr Gallant.