International Court Rejects Israel's Request To Withdraw Netanyahu's Arrest Warrant
Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Wednesday rejected Israel's request to withdraw arrest warrants against its prime minister and former defence minister while the ICC reviews Israeli challenges to its jurisdiction over the conduct of the Gaza war.
In a decision published on the ICC website, judges also rejected an Israeli request to suspend the wider ICC investigation into alleged atrocity crimes in the Palestinian Territories.
The ICC issued arrest warrants on November 21 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence chief, Yoav Gallant, as well as a Hamas leader, Ibrahim al-Masri, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict.
The court said in February that judges had withdrawn the arrest warrant for al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif, following credible reports of his death.
Israel rejects the jurisdiction of the Hague-based court and denies war crimes in Gaza, where it has waged a military campaign it says is aimed at eliminating Hamas since the deadly attack on Israel by the militant Palestinian group on October 7, 2023. It is contesting the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.
Israel has argued that an appeals chamber decision in April ordering the pre-trial chamber to review Israel's objections to the court's jurisdiction means there is no valid jurisdictional basis for the warrants.
The judges rejected that reasoning as incorrect, saying on Wednesday that Israel's jurisdictional challenge to the arrest warrants was still pending and the warrants would remain in place until the court ruled on that issue specifically.
There is no timeline for a ruling on jurisdiction in this case.
In June the United States imposed sanctions on four judges at the ICC, an unprecedented retaliation over the war tribunal's issuance of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Two of the sanctioned judges are on the panel that ruled to reject Israel's request to withdraw the warrants.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Nothing's safe anymore': Pakistani expert admits fear over India's 7,500-kg bunker buster missile that can strike 80m deep
India is reportedly developing a massive conventional missile based on its nuclear-capable Agni-V platform, designed to destroy underground enemy targets like Pakistan's nuclear command centres. The move, inspired by the US's bunker-busting strikes in Iran, has triggered alarm among Pakistani experts, who warn that it dangerously blurs the line between conventional and nuclear warfare. They argue that such a weapon could provoke miscalculation, spark unintended escalation and unravel the fragile logic that's kept South Asia from crossing the nuclear threshold. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A powerful new conventional missile under development in India has left Pakistan visibly uneasy. Designed to strike deep underground targets, the 7,500-kg Agni-V-based bunker buster, capable of reaching hardened nuclear command centres, is already provoking a reaction across the border. A top Pakistani strategic affairs expert has sounded alarm over what she sees as a 'dangerous shift' in India's military doctrine that could upend the region's fragile missile, reportedly under development by India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), is an advanced version of the Agni-V ballistic missile platform. Unlike the nuclear-tipped Agni-V, this version is designed to carry a massive conventional warhead capable of penetrating 80 to 100 metres underground, a weapon meant to target deeply buried command centres, missile storage facilities, and other hardened to Indian media reports, the missile will have a reduced range of about 2,500 km, compared to Agni-V's intercontinental reach, due to the heavy warhead. However, its destructive potential remains significant. Two variants are believed to be in the works: one that detonates above ground to strike surface targets, and another designed to bore deep into the earth before exploding — similar in function to the US GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Agni-5 missile, equipped with bunker-busting capabilities, is tailored to address regional threats. It provides a powerful conventional option to pre-emptively neutralise enemy targets. With the ability to strike deeply fortified underground sites, the Agni-5 helps India effectively counter strategic weapon, if operationalised, would be among the most powerful conventional missiles in the world. Its ability to deliver a devastating payload without crossing the nuclear threshold could offer Indian military planners a new option in the event of a high-stakes across the border, the development is being viewed with growing unease. Writing in Pakistan's Dawn newspaper, Rabia Akhtar, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Lahore, warned that such a weapon risks a 'hazardous entanglement' between conventional and nuclear strategies. She argues that a missile capable of destroying command-and-control centres, which may also serve as nuclear command posts, could trigger unintended reported move comes in the wake of the United States' use of similar bunker-busting munitions against Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz in June this year. According to Rabia Akhtar, this demonstration of conventional firepower likely influenced Indian strategic thinking, pushing for a missile that could perform a similar role in the India has not officially commented on the new missile, several Indian defence experts have indicated that it could be aimed at deterring adversaries by holding their most secure military assets at risk, all without using nuclear however, sees a more scary picture. The very idea that a conventional missile could be used to neutralise strategic targets may prompt riskier calculations during a crisis. 'It creates uncertainty around intent,' Akhtar said, adding that Pakistan's early-warning systems might not be able to distinguish a conventional Agni missile from a nuclear one, increasing the chances of an overreaction.
The Print
17 minutes ago
- The Print
China's Brahmaputra dam is also a military asset. It raises alarm for India
In contemporary geopolitics, infrastructure has become a strategic language of its own, one that Beijing is speaking fluently. Beyond the spectacle of scale, the Chinese online discourse quickly turned the project into a symbol of strategic ascendancy. India, the downstream neighbour, is cast as anxious and reactive . China, in contrast, is portrayed as visionary and unyielding—a master of its geography and architect of a new regional order. Chinese Premier Li Qiang, on 19 July, presided over the groundbreaking of what is set to become the world's largest hydropower dam , on the so-called 'Yarlung Zangbo', as China refers to the Brahmaputra River. Within hours, Chinese online platforms erupted in celebration. A Weibo hashtag marking the occasion—#Construction begins on lower Yarlung Zangbo Hydropower Project—amassed over 73 million views. Engineering feat or strategic signal? The Medog Hydropower Station is projected to cost $167 billion and boasts a planned capacity of 70 to 81 million kilowatts, roughly triple that of the Three Gorges Dam. Once completed, it is expected to generate 300 billion kilowatt-hours annually. The project will take a decade to build, but its signalling to the region, especially India, is immediate. Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a daily Chinese tabloid, criticised Western media for focusing on India's ecological and geopolitical concerns while ignoring what he called an 'engineering miracle'. For Hu, the dam is not just about electricity; it is also a declaration of China's ability to tame the Himalayas and reshape geography. One Chinese commentator claimed that India's objections stem not from technical concerns, but from its deeply entrenched 'security-first' mindset. New Delhi, the commentator argued, has long prioritised control over collaboration, building its own dams while accusing others of weaponising water. 'India's alarmism,' another wrote, 'comes from its own guilty conscience.' China's dual narrative Officially, Beijing is presenting the dam as a developmental initiative, aimed at energy security, poverty alleviation, regional integration, and transforming Nyingchi into the 'Little Sichuan' or 'Jiangnan of Tibet.' Talk of water weaponisation is being brushed aside as paranoia. Commentators invoke 'non-zero-sum' logic and portray China as a responsible upstream actor. But unofficial voices tell a different story. 'India, which tries to control Pakistan with water cuts, now fears China might do the same,' one commentator quipped. Victor Gao, vice president of the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization, was even more blunt: 'If India uses rivers as leverage against Pakistan, it should be prepared for reciprocity.' These comparisons are not new. Over a decade ago, Ye Hailin, director of Asian Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argued that if India expects restraint from China as an upstream power, it should accept the same standard when Pakistan, downstream of India, makes similar demands. A more recent commentary on Baidu put it less diplomatically: 'Just a month ago, before the official exchange of fire between India and Pakistan, India took the initiative, cutting off water at will, then releasing it, showing little regard for the lives of Pakistani civilians. Faced with a neighbour like India, we [China] must abandon any moral restraint. We should move at our own pace, neither seeking to dominate nor to appease. Stand firm, when necessary, fight when required. Otherwise, we risk being the ones who suffer.' Also read: India's 'triple anxiety'—What Chinese media sees in Jaishankar's Beijing visit Water, border, and politics of control On Chinese social media, the discussion turned openly strategic. One user noted a road built inside the dam tunnels, ostensibly for maintenance, that leads directly to Arunachal Pradesh. 'In peacetime, it is for power,' the user wrote. 'In wartime? I do not need to spell it out.' This is infrastructure envisioned not just as an economic backbone, but as a military asset, both shield and sword. This strategic undertone also helps explain Beijing's long-standing refusal to enter a hydrological data-sharing agreement with India. As Hu Suisheng, senior fellow at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, once noted, such cooperation would implicitly acknowledge India's border position—especially over Arunachal Pradesh, which China disputes. Despite the rhetoric of regional uplift and mutual benefit, India's concerns have been routinely dismissed by the Chinese official narrative and online discourse. There has been no consultation, only unilateral action over a transboundary river system that feeds millions downstream. Beneath China's rhetoric of development flows a deeper current, shaped by quiet force and strategic intent. This is not merely the redirection of water but the rewriting of the regional order through determination and power. For New Delhi, this dam raises alarm. For Beijing, this is advantageous on multiple fronts. Cooperation may be the language used, but the headwaters of the Brahmaputra speak of dominance and unilateral action, not dialogue or mutual benefit. Sana Hashmi is a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She tweets @sanahashmi1. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
New Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Global climate action is at stake in the UN top court's biggest ever decision
THE HAGUE: The UN's highest court is handing down a historic opinion on climate change Wednesday, a decision that could set a legal benchmark for action around the globe to the climate crisis. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice in 2023 for an advisory opinion, a non-binding but important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions. First, what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Any decision by The Hague-based court would be non-binding advice and unable to directly force wealthy nations into action to help struggling countries. Yet it would be more than just a powerful symbol, since it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision and states could return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account. And whatever the judges say will be used as the basis for other legal instruments, like investment agreements, Chowdhury said. The United States and Russia, both of which are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
