The arrest warrants issued on Thursday by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant have sparked intense reactions from the United States, including threats from lawmakers to invoke the controversial “Hague Invasion Act.” Here’s what the act entails and why it is significant in the current context.
What is the Hague Invasion Act?
The Hague Invasion Act is the informal name for the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on 3 August 2002. The law was designed to protect U.S. military personnel and government officials from being prosecuted by the ICC. It gives the United States the authority to use “all necessary means,” including military force, to secure the release of any U.S. or allied citizen detained by the ICC. It came ahead of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq where U.S. and UK troops are alleged to have committed numerous war crimes.
The act came as a response to the U.S. refusal to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC, fearing that American soldiers and officials could be subject to politically motivated prosecutions. Due to its provisions, the law has been dubbed the “Hague Invasion Act,” as it theoretically allows the U.S. to invade the Netherlands, where the ICC is based, to free any Americans in ICC custody.
How does It relate to Israel?
The ICC’s recent arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant have intensified debates around the Hague Invasion Act. Some U.S. lawmakers, particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel, have suggested using the act as leverage against the ICC and any countries that might enforce the arrest orders.
Republican Senator Tom Cotton went as far as to threaten the ICC, calling it a “kangaroo court” and hinting at the use of the Hague Invasion Act against nations that attempt to detain Israeli officials.
“The ICC is a kangaroo court and Karim Khan is a deranged fanatic. Woe to him and anyone who tries to enforce these outlaw warrants. Let me give them all a friendly reminder: the American law on the ICC is known as The Hague Invasion Act for a reason. Think about it,” he wrote on X.
While U.S. President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump did not go this far, Biden lambasted the ICC’s warrants while Trump’s pick for national security advisor Mike Waltz threatened the court with “a strong response” and wrote on social media that the ICC “has no credibility”.
The U.S. has historically opposed ICC investigations into Israel, citing concerns over fairness and jurisdiction, and has used diplomatic and financial means to shield Israeli leaders from accountability in international courts. On Wednesday, the U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council Gaza ceasefire resolution.
International reactions and legal implications
The Hague Invasion Act has long been controversial, even among U.S. allies. When it was first passed, it triggered a wave of criticism, particularly in Europe. Human Rights Watch described the law as an attempt to intimidate countries that cooperate with the ICC. The Netherlands, as the host country of the ICC and a NATO ally, was particularly vocal in its opposition, given the implicit threat that the U.S. could, in theory, invade its territory.
In the context of the ICC arrest warrants for Israeli officials, the Hague Invasion Act is being framed as a potential tool to deter the enforcement of international justice. The ICC has 124 member states, all of which are obligated to execute arrest warrants issued by the court. This puts Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, at risk of being detained if they travel to any of these countries, significantly limiting their diplomatic freedom. However, U.S. lawmakers’ threats suggest that there may be severe consequences for any country that attempts to enforce these arrest orders.
Whether or not the U.S. would actually use military force under the Hague Invasion Act remains uncertain, but the mere threat serves as a powerful signal to the ICC and the international community.
However, Ohio State University law professor John Quigley told The New Arab’s Arabic edition: “There isn’t much the U.S. can do against the ICC after its decision to issue an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.” He explained that some members of Congress want to punish the court and that once President-elect Donald Trump assumes office in January, he might take measures against some court officials, as he did previously when he barred them from entering the United States. However, “there is nothing the U.S. can do to prevent the court from handling a case or doing what it needs to do in any case.”