JUSTICE - No. 65

12 No. 65 JUSTICE mention one additional point in this context: while the Prosecutor does not accept that sovereignty over the territory is in abeyance, she fails to provide a convincing legal reasoning for her dissent. Instead, she chooses overly complicated legal arguments for a conclusion that should have been simpler. Jurisdiction is not a legal technicality. It is a substantive requirement, and it should be treated accordingly and be evaluated carefully. This is especially important for a criminal law institution. After five years of preliminary examination, the Prosecutor submitted altogether over 170 pages of arguments to make the case of jurisdiction and to tailor case-specific interpretations to our situation. That was done, instead of rejecting the attempts to exploit the Court for political ends. Beyond the legal issue of jurisdiction, it should be recalled that the Court should focus on the gravest crimes of concern to the international community, and that the ICC is a court of last resort that is complementary to national judicial systems. Israel is a law-abiding democracy. To the extent that there are credible allegations against Israeli nationals, the Israeli legal system is more than willing and able to address them. We expect the Pre-Trial Chamber's decision on this issue to be based on a solid legal foundation of international law and on the Court's mandate. Adopting the Prosecutor's position would harm the ICC's legitimacy and steer it even further away from its original mission and mandate. Finally, the Prosecutor's intervention concerns matters that lie at the very heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, interfering with any prospects of future agreements that may come. The Court was never meant to replace complex political processes. This is evident in our situation and especially with regard to the Oslo Accords. These Accords are the framework of the parties' relations, and great caution is required to preserve them. We saw in June that when the Pre-Trial Chamber asked the Palestinians to submit additional information on the Accords, pursuant to Abu Mazen's declaration that referred to their validity, the Palestinians were cautious enough to avoid declaring the Accords to be void. The Prosecutor's treatment of the Accords in her submissions, including the completely unfounded insinuation that the Palestinians were coerced into the Accords, demonstrates the damage that the Court's intervention can have on the delicate Middle East peace process. Just recently, historical agreements were reached between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, and between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain. This is an important reminder that negotiations and agreements between parties are the only way to resolve political disputes. The Court's intervention would only make it harder. The last few weeks have allowed us to be optimistic and reminded us to trust the power of negotiations. I hope that I will be able to spend my time working on these positive processes in the Middle East, and not on an ill-founded proceeding in the Court. A decision to reject the Palestinian effort to embroil the Court in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would not only be beneficial to the future of Middle East, but also to the Court, which, I hope, will remain faithful to and operate within its original mandate. n December 6, 2020 Dr. Roy Schöndorf is Deputy Attorney General for International Law, Israel Mini st ry of Ju st ice.