The United Kingdom’s current Labour administration faces a significant challenge regarding its foreign policy towards Gaza in light of a potential showdown over arrest warrants the International Criminal Court (ICC) is seeking for Israel’s top leaders.
In May, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Brave for alleged war crimes during Israel’s conflict in the Gaza Strip. He also sought warrants for three leaders of the Palestinian group Hamas for alleged war crimes during the October 7 attacks in southern Israel.
The UK has not formally responded to the arrest warrants. The previous Conservative administration had only obtained court approval to submit arguments before the July 4 UK elections, which they lost, leaving the situation uncertain. The ICC initially gave the UK government until July 12 to submit a legal opinion, which was later extended to July 26.
Following a landslide victory three weeks ago, the Labour Party and its new administration have made several policy shifts, including canceling plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda and introducing a 40-bill agenda for the next five years.
However, questions remain about Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s approach to the Gaza conflict. What has been the UK’s stance on the ICC prosecutor’s request for warrants against senior Israeli leaders, and has the Starmer administration signaled any change in its strategy towards Israel and Gaza?
What was the Conservative government’s stance?
According to court documents, the Conservative government’s lawyers argued that there were jurisdictional issues concerning Israeli nationals before arrest warrants could be issued. They specifically raised this concern for Israeli leaders and not for Hamas leaders. The lawyers requested permission to provide written observations on the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals in cases where Palestine cannot assert criminal jurisdiction.
In June, ICC judges allowed the UK, as an ICC member state, to present arguments on the legality of the requested arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Brave. The ICC invited submissions from interested parties on the legal issues surrounding the arrest warrants until July 12, with an extension granted to July 26 due to the UK’s general election.
What do critics of the UK government’s objection say?
Critics, including human rights lawyers and experts, have criticized the UK government’s objection to the ICC’s jurisdiction. Human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson described the objection as “an absolute nonsense,” while Joseph Willits from the Council for Arab-British Understanding emphasized unwavering support for the ICC and its arrest warrants.
What did the Labour Party initially say about the Conservative government’s arguments?
Following the ICC prosecutor’s announcement in May, David Lammy, who later became the Foreign Secretary in the Labour government, expressed the party’s support for the court as a cornerstone of international justice. He stressed that arrest warrants do not imply guilt but reflect the prosecutor’s assessment of individual criminal responsibility. Starmer also affirmed Labour’s commitment to recognizing a Palestinian state and advocating for a two-state solution for lasting peace in the region.
What has Labour said about the ICC challenge since winning the election?
In his early days in office, Starmer engaged with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, affirming Palestinian rights to statehood. He urged for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and reiterated support for a two-state solution and financial stability for the Palestinian Authority. Lammy’s visit to Israel sparked controversy among pro-Palestine supporters within the Labour Party, but the government has not officially announced its stance on the ICC issue.
What changes has the Labour government made in UK policy towards Gaza?
The Labour administration announced the resumption of funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), signaling a shift in the UK’s approach to the conflict. The decision to restore funding came after assurances of neutrality and improved vetting procedures within the organization. Advocates emphasize the need for a clear and consistent foreign policy that upholds international law and human rights standards, including non-interference with the ICC.
