The Dutch Supreme Court has upheld a ruling that a Palestinian man cannot sue Israel’s former defense minister and another former senior military officer over their roles in a deadly Gaza 2014 airstrike.
This is kind of interesting but not surprising, jurisdictionally. Putting the politics of Israel/Palestine aside for a minute, you can see how it could open a can of worms to allow a foreign government (Israel) to be sued abroad (Netherlands). Presumably if you wanted to do that, you’d need to sue in the government’s jurisdiction (israel).
Even if you won a case like this abroad (Netherlands), they would have no mechanism for enforcement, as they can’t force a foreign state (Israel) to abide by their laws.
Exactly why it’s so harmful that the USA denied the International Court of law, even making plans to forcefully extract American citizens of ever indicted.
This sincerely hamstrings the jurisdiction of said court. It’s ironic as some American thinkers and philanthropes where essential for its conception
The elimination system - In this system, there is no list. Dual criminality is established if the crime is punishable in both countries and is threatened with a minimum maximum penalty in both countries.[2] The minimum maximum penalty is established in the treaty concerned. In case of extradition for execution, the treaty provides a minimum remaining term of sentence which still had to be served.~~
I am not a practicing attorney in either Israel or the Netherlands, but I don’t believe it applies as (a) the article suggests it was a suit for damages/monetery compensation, which is a civil suit, and non-criminal proceedings are generally not eligible for extradition; and (b) as the defendant is the Israeli Minister of Defence and was sued for his conduct in the course of his duties, in many jurisdictions this would imply he was acting on behalf of, and theoretically under orders or with support of, the state; therefore it is the state itself that should be the target of such a suit, which brings me back to it falling under the jurisdiction of that state’s judiciary.
An example with US-tinted glasses: suppose you feel President Biden wronged you in his capacity as president; you generally would not be able to sue or press charges against him personally in a suit like Bob Smith v. Joe Biden; you would have to sue the Government with him and his deputies as named representatives (Bob Smith v. United States).
Now replace Bob Smith with a Mexican fellow, Roberto Herrero. The same suit with a Mexican plaintiff, Roberto Herroro v. United States, by definition cannot be carried out in Mexico - at least not to any binding result. To the extent the US Government ought to be compelled to do anything, it would have to be by its own judiciary.
This is kind of interesting but not surprising, jurisdictionally. Putting the politics of Israel/Palestine aside for a minute, you can see how it could open a can of worms to allow a foreign government (Israel) to be sued abroad (Netherlands). Presumably if you wanted to do that, you’d need to sue in the government’s jurisdiction (israel).
Even if you won a case like this abroad (Netherlands), they would have no mechanism for enforcement, as they can’t force a foreign state (Israel) to abide by their laws.
Which is why we need a world court with teeth.
Exactly why it’s so harmful that the USA denied the International Court of law, even making plans to forcefully extract American citizens of ever indicted.
This sincerely hamstrings the jurisdiction of said court. It’s ironic as some American thinkers and philanthropes where essential for its conception
~~Israel has an extradition agreement with the Netherlands.
I am not a practicing attorney in either Israel or the Netherlands, but I don’t believe it applies as (a) the article suggests it was a suit for damages/monetery compensation, which is a civil suit, and non-criminal proceedings are generally not eligible for extradition; and (b) as the defendant is the Israeli Minister of Defence and was sued for his conduct in the course of his duties, in many jurisdictions this would imply he was acting on behalf of, and theoretically under orders or with support of, the state; therefore it is the state itself that should be the target of such a suit, which brings me back to it falling under the jurisdiction of that state’s judiciary.
An example with US-tinted glasses: suppose you feel President Biden wronged you in his capacity as president; you generally would not be able to sue or press charges against him personally in a suit like Bob Smith v. Joe Biden; you would have to sue the Government with him and his deputies as named representatives (Bob Smith v. United States).
Now replace Bob Smith with a Mexican fellow, Roberto Herrero. The same suit with a Mexican plaintiff, Roberto Herroro v. United States, by definition cannot be carried out in Mexico - at least not to any binding result. To the extent the US Government ought to be compelled to do anything, it would have to be by its own judiciary.
I stand corrected.