In the labyrinth of Middle Eastern politics, the Oslo Accords hold a pivotal place. Signed in the early 1990s, these agreements aimed to pave the way for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. However, as conflicts continue and new tragedies unfold, the question arises: Do the Oslo Accords shield actions in Gaza from accountability, particularly concerning allegations of war crimes?
Understanding the Oslo Accords
The Oslo Accords were a series of agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), marking the first time both parties officially acknowledged each other’s existence and laid out a framework for negotiating a two-state solution. These accords established the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the governing body in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and envisioned a process leading to a final status agreement.
The War Crimes Debate
Despite the spirit of peace the Oslo Accords intended to cultivate, the region has witnessed numerous conflicts and humanitarian crises. One of the most pressing issues is the persistent accusation of war crimes from both sides of the conflict. The Gaza Strip, in particular, has been a focal point of intense and often deadly clashes.
International law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), provides mechanisms for prosecuting war crimes. These legal frameworks apply irrespective of political agreements or treaties like the Oslo Accords. The Accords do not grant immunity from war crimes; rather, they are aimed at fostering dialogue and cooperation between the conflicting parties.
Legal and Practical Considerations
- International Jurisdiction: The ICC and other international legal bodies operate independently of bilateral agreements such as the Oslo Accords. Their mandate is to prosecute war crimes based on evidence and legal standards, not on the political agreements that might exist between parties in conflict. This means that allegations of war crimes in Gaza can be investigated and prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence and legal basis.
- Accountability Mechanisms: The international community has established various mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable. For instance, the UN Human Rights Council and various NGOs have documented violations and called for investigations. These efforts are part of a broader international commitment to ensuring that justice is pursued, regardless of political agreements.
- Challenges in Pursuit: While international law provides a framework for accountability, the practical challenges are immense. Political resistance, particularly from powerful states or influential actors, can hinder investigations and prosecutions. Moreover, ongoing conflicts often complicate the collection of evidence and the administration of justice.
Norway has asserted that the 1993 Middle East peace deal it brokered does not prevent a war crimes trial involving Gaza. Pro-Israeli lawyers have argued that the Oslo Accords should obstruct such legal proceedings, but Norway’s representatives argue otherwise.
Norwegian lawyers have told the court that the Oslo Accords “are not relevant” to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) ability to adjudicate cases against Israeli and Hamas leaders. The ICC is considering arrest warrants sought by prosecutor Karim Khan, who has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant of using starvation as a war tactic in Gaza. Khan is also seeking warrants against three Hamas commanders for the October 7 attack on Israel, though two of the commanders have since died.
Pro-Israeli advocates argue that if Palestinians cannot prosecute Israelis under the Oslo Accords, then the ICC should not be able to do so on their behalf. The Accords, signed in 1993 after secret negotiations in Norway, were meant to initiate a peace process, which has since faltered. The 1995 Oslo II agreement allowed for Palestinian self-governance but retained “sole criminal jurisdiction” for Israel over its citizens.
Norway’s submission, made public for the first time, counters this claim. The document states that the Oslo Accords “do not affect the ICC’s jurisdiction,” emphasizing that the Rome Statute, which governs the ICC, does not reference these agreements. The submission argues that the Accords were intended as temporary and that they do not permanently waive Palestinian rights to seek justice through international mechanisms.
As the ICC considers these legal arguments, over 60 states and lobbyists are presenting their views. Norway is among a group of European countries, including Ireland, Spain, and Slovenia, that have recently recognized Palestinian statehood.
Meanwhile, the US is debating its stance on the ICC. Senior US Senator Ben Cardin has suggested that allegations of war crimes should be handled by Israel’s own judiciary. This position comes amid growing opposition from Washington towards the ICC. Cardin’s comments reflect a broader debate in Congress about how to address the ICC, with some lawmakers supporting sanctions against the court. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Senator Lindsey Graham have discussed potential sanctions and differing approaches to the ICC.
The situation is further complicated by other international legal scrutiny, with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) also reviewing Israel’s actions in Gaza for potential genocide claims. Pro-Palestinian lawyers argue that recent ICJ rulings and the practical abandonment of the Oslo Accords by Israel suggest that the laws of war could override the Accords in this context.
As the legal and political debate continues, the international community remains divided on how best to address and adjudicate the complex issues surrounding the Gaza conflict.
For justice to be meaningful, it must transcend political agreements and address violations with impartiality. The Oslo Accords, while significant in their context, do not absolve any party of responsibility under international law. As conflicts continue and new allegations arise, the international community must remain vigilant and committed to ensuring that accountability mechanisms are robust and functional.
The pursuit of justice in Gaza and beyond should focus on upholding the principles of international law, independent of political agreements or the intricacies of peace processes. In doing so, the global community affirms its dedication to human rights and the rule of law, reinforcing that no accord can shield perpetrators from accountability for war crimes.
