Under Construction Journal Issue 6.1 UNDER CONSTRUCTION JOURNAL 6.1 | Page 96

son, Jordan who provide legal counsel for the organisation and to the President of the United States,
Donald J. Trump. As a result of this connection, the organisation is simply injecting the narrative of US
hostility towards the Court and takes an adversarial, highly critical view of the investigation but also, more
broadly of the ICC. Ultimately, the ECLJ is appropriating the amicus curiae submission as a vehicle by which
to undermine the Court.
Initially, this appropriation presents itself in a statement of the potential impact that the appeal
hearing will have on the other investigations going on at the ICC 39 . It refers to two situations currently
ongoing at the ICC that could be impacted by the appeal hearing, that of Palestine 40 and the Vessels of
Comoros, Greece and Cambodia (commonly referred to the Gaza flotilla incident) 41 . At a first glance, this
does not provide much in the way of significance, however, if one probes deeper into who the ECLJ is
referring to more implicitly, these cases hold one similarity, a state like the US is not a state party to the
Rome Statute but who would nonetheless find themselves within the ICC’s jurisdiction, Israel.
Unfortunately, this is not accidental as for years the ECLJ has provided continued criticism of the ICC in
relation to any potential investigation into Israel as a result of the two aforementioned investigations 42 .
Thus, by utilising current investigations in which the ECLJ have a vested interest simply reinforces the
claim that the ECLJ is utilising the submission as a platform to inoculate any arguments or statements they
make to undermine the ICC and its investigations.
This is only furthered in the following statements that ‘in light of growing calls for the ICC to
exercise increasingly expansive jurisdiction’ 43 and that ‘the Court risks further alienating non-party States,
which may result in additional actions by such States to hamper the Court's ability to investigate and try
cases that otherwise clearly fall within the Court's jurisdiction’ 44 . Firstly, to tackle the initial claim made
on expansive jurisdiction. The first point to make is that it is a sweeping statement with no evidence from
39
Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Request for Leave to Submit Observations on behalf of the
European Centre for Law and Justice) ICC-02/17-95 (22 October 2019), 4.
40
“Palestine”, ICC-cpi.int, accessed 28 November 2019, https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine.
41
“Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia”, ICC-cpi.int, accessed 28 November 2019,
https://www.icc-cpi.int/comoros.
42
“ACLJ to International Criminal Court: Jewish Settlements in Judea and Samaria Are Not “War Crimes””, Skip Ash,
accessed 28 November 2019, https://aclj.org/israel/aclj-to-international-criminal-court-jewish-settlements-in-
judea-and-samaria-are-not-war-crimes; “ACLJ Once Again Stands For Israel at the ICC”, Skip Ash, accessed 28
November 2019, https://aclj.org/israel/aclj-once-again-stands-for-israel-at-the-icc; “The ICC Gets It
Rights...Finally”, Jay Sekulow, accessed 28 November 2019, https://aclj.org/israel/icc-gets-right-finally.
43
supra n. 23.
44
ibid.
87