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.
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.
I stand corrected.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The Dutch Supreme Court on Friday 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 2014 Gaza airstrike.
His legal team argued that the men didn’t have immunity because their actions amounted to war crimes.
Israel’s Justice Ministry told a lower Dutch court that an internal Israeli military investigation determined the airstrike had killed four militants hiding in the house.
Gantz thanked his country’s justice and foreign ministries for leading “the push that led to the dismissal of the lawsuit against me and against the former Air Force Commander Major General (ret.)
Gantz — who was military chief of staff at the time of the airstrike in Gaza — and Eshel had immunity because they were carrying out Israeli government policies, Dutch courts in The Hague ruled.
Gantz welcomed the dismissal of the lawsuit, crediting what he described as Israel’s “strong and independent judicial system” that protects Israeli soldiers and commanders “even in front of international courts.”
The original article contains 460 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
