Comment by jameshilliard

> Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power.

So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?

> If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza.

If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.

> It would be up to a judge to rule on that

Well the real question is what judge even has the authority to rule on something like that, most sovereign states will give their own domestic courts authority above any external/foreign courts.

> Afghanistan joined signed the treaty.

The de jure government may have, but not the de facto government. The Palestine jurisdictional situation is even more confusing since they were never recognized by the UN or Israel as a full state.

> They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.

They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability. Not that it means much anyways since even member states will regularly ignore what they signed.

It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.