The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, the court announced on 21 November 2024.

Pre-Trial Chamber I handed down the decision in the Situation in the State of Palestine, rejecting two challenges brought by the State of Israel contesting the court's jurisdiction. The judges found Israel's objections unpersuasive and proceeded to authorise the warrants requested by the Office of the Prosecutor.

The ruling marks a decisive moment in one of the most contentious proceedings in the court's history. Israel is not a state party to the Rome Statute, and its government has consistently argued that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over its nationals. Pre-Trial Chamber I disagreed, upholding the court's territorial jurisdiction over the situation in Palestine, which the ICC Prosecutor's office has pursued following Palestine's status as a State Party to the Rome Statute.

The chamber considered Israel's challenges under Article 18 and Article 19 of the Rome Statute. Both applications failed. The judges concluded that the court could exercise jurisdiction and that the legal barriers raised by Israel did not preclude the issuance of warrants.

Under the Rome Statute, the issuance of an arrest warrant requires the chamber to find reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect committed the alleged crimes. Having dismissed the jurisdictional objections, the chamber determined that this threshold was met and issued the warrants, which remain sealed in part, as is standard ICC practice in certain respects.

For practitioners, the decision carries immediate and practical consequences. All 124 states parties to the Rome Statute now face a binding obligation to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant should they enter their territory, and to surrender them to the court in The Hague. That obligation extends to states with which Israel maintains diplomatic relations, creating real friction points for travel, summits, and multilateral engagement involving the two men. The ruling also strengthens the hand of national prosecutors weighing universal jurisdiction proceedings, and it will shape litigation strategy in any future admissibility or complementarity challenges Israel may bring.

The jurisdictional holding may prove the more consequential part of the ruling. By rejecting Israel's Article 18 and Article 19 challenges, Pre-Trial Chamber I has reaffirmed the court's position that it may exercise jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the territory of Palestine. That determination will govern subsequent stages of the proceedings, including any eventual confirmation of charges and trial, unless reversed on appeal.

The decision also underscores the limits of non-cooperation. Israel declined to participate in the jurisdictional proceedings on the merits of its own position, and the chamber proceeded regardless. Practitioners advising states and international organisations will need to assess exposure arising from the warrants, particularly around official-visit protocols and obligations under the Rome Statute's cooperation regime.

The case now moves forward in the ICC's standard sequence. The warrants stand unless and until challenged successfully. Netanyahu and Gallant are not in ICC custody, so proceedings on the merits cannot begin until one of the two outcomes occurs: voluntary appearance, or arrest and surrender by a state party.

The chamber's rejection of Israel's challenges settles, for now, the preliminary jurisdictional fight that has shadowed the Situation in the State of Palestine since its opening. It does not end the litigation. Expect further procedural skirmishing over admissibility, cooperation, and enforcement as the Office of the Prosecutor presses its case.