Treasa Dunworth: Auckland University associate law professor on whether countries would follow through with ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu

Questions whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he left the country.

The International Criminal Court's been served with an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes.

124 countries are obligated to carry out warrants.

Auckland University Associate Law Professor Treasa Dunworth told Heather du Plessis-Allan countries like the UK and France have been cagey about whether they'd follow through.

“When it was specifically asked what would they do if Netanyahu was in their country, they fudged the answer, so we just don’t know.”

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now as we know, the International Criminal Court has issued
a warrant for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister being
him and Netan Yahoo. Now this means that if Netanyao
who sets foot in any of the one hundred and
twenty four countries that are signatories to the ICC, and
that includes US, the authorities are expected to arrest him
and hand him over to the court for trial. Israel,
which is not a signatory to the ICC, has condemned
the decision. Now. Truss Dunworth is an associate professor at

(00:23):
Auckland University. Hey Trusse, Hi, Heather Trusse. He's not going
to get arrested, is he?

Speaker 2 (00:30):
He may well get arrested. It depends on where he goes.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
So if he stays in Israel, not a signatory, he's okay.
If he goes to the US, he's okay. Presumably, Actually
what happens when he got quite interested to know what
happens if he goes to any of the European countries
who are signatories but are supplying arms, are they necessarily
going to hand him over?

Speaker 2 (00:54):
Well, we don't know whether they're going to hand him
over or not, but they're certainly legally a blig to
hand him over, and a number of the states already
today the European states have started making official statements about
what their position would be, and some of them are

(01:15):
very clear that they will surrender, like the Netherlands has
said it will surrender, and the Netherlands supply components of
the f thirty five's to Israel, but they have specifically
said that they would surrender. To my knowledge, Germany hasn't
yet made a statement. France has said that it is

(01:36):
mindful of its obligations and it will act in line
with the Rome Statute, but when specifically asked would it surrender,
it said that that was a legally complex question, and
the UK stated that it respected its obligations under the

(01:57):
Rome Statute. But when it was against specific asked what
would they do if Annetta now who was in their territory,
it didn't. It fudged the answer basically. So we just
don't know what's going to happen. Trust.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
So this is a big move for the ICC because
I mean, is it fair to say it's actually put
its own reputation on the line here.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
Well, I don't see how this is a matter for
the ICC's reputation.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Well, okay, let me outline it to you. So, first
of all, this is the first time it's issued, as
far as I can see, issued a warrant for the
arrest of a democratically elected leader. Secondly, this is a
leader supported by Western allies, which is pretty unusual. And
then thirdly, if it gets to the point that he
actually turns up in any of these countries, for example,

(02:45):
the UK and France and they don't hand him over,
that's really undermining of the ICC, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Well, you've raised a number of questions. We might say
that it has enhanced the ICC's reputation that it has
been prepared to issue. You're an arrest warrant for someone
where there is ample evidence to have a reasonable belief
that there would be a conviction if he came to trial,

(03:11):
and yet he is a Western ally Because over the
last couple of decades, the criticism of the court has
been that it just goes after the African states and
heads of states from the global South, and that it
is in fact biased in that way. So in one

(03:33):
sense we could say that this might kind of set
the record straight.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
Do you think though, that it risks maybe losing membership. No,
you don't think anybody's going to say this is to
a bridge too far. We support the sky, we're going
to pull out.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
No, who would do that?

Speaker 1 (03:51):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
States except for the United States hasn't joined us.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yes, no, okay, does he have any appeal rights here?

Speaker 2 (04:01):
He will have an appeal right, So if he is convicted,
he will have appeal rights he has had in terms
of the issuing. You know, because it was six months
ago that the prosecutor of the court applied to the
chambers or to the judges for an issue of an

(04:21):
arrest warrant and Israel exercised its right to there weren't appeals,
but there were challenges to the court's authority, and in
issuing these arrest warrants, the court has also said, we
don't accept your arguments that this case is inadmissible, and

(04:44):
we don't accept your arguments that we don't have jurisdiction.
So they're not exactly appeal rights because they are challenges
prior to the decision. But of course if there was
a trial and a conviction, there would be appeal rights
in the usual.

Speaker 1 (05:00):
Trust a listen, fascinating topic. Thank you so much. For
giving us your thoughts on that that's trusted done with
Associate professor at the University of Auckland's Faculty of Law.
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive Listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.