The Labour Government has been accused of “confusion, inconsistency, and a dereliction of duty” over its response to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The warrant has sparked outrage among senior politicians, legal experts, and commentators, who warn that mishandling the issue could have grave diplomatic and legal implications.
Priti Patel, former Home Secretary, has criticised Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy for their silence. “Serious questions have been raised about the UK’s position regarding the ICC and the arrest warrants issued. The Government must give answers. But so far, Keir Starmer and David Lammy have nothing to say. Their silence is an abdication of responsibility and accountability,” she said.
Lord Wolfson Demands Clarity
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar KC, a Conservative peer and former Justice Minister, has written to the Attorney General seeking urgent clarification of the UK’s legal obligations. In his detailed letter, Lord Wolfson outlined the complex interplay between the Rome Statute, customary international law, and the UK’s domestic legislation, the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
“The Government’s equivocation on whether the UK would enforce the ICC arrest warrant against Mr Netanyahu is untenable,” Lord Wolfson wrote. He highlighted the immunity enjoyed by a serving prime minister under customary international law, which the ICC Act explicitly recognises for non-State Parties like Israel. “The immunity of an official of a non-State Party is unaffected by, and indeed endorsed by, the Act,” he added.
Lord Wolfson also questioned whether the Government acknowledges that UK law supersedes ICC rulings, including controversial decisions in the Bashir case, which have been widely criticised by legal scholars.
Labour’s Silence Sparks Criticism
The Government’s handling of the matter has drawn sharp rebukes from across the political spectrum. Critics argue that Labour’s unclear position jeopardises the UK’s diplomatic relations with Israel, a key ally, and undermines the integrity of the country’s legal obligations.
A Treasury spokesperson has stated that the Government will act “in accordance with the law,” but has not provided specific answers to the legal questions raised. This vagueness has further inflamed concerns.
A Diplomatic and Legal Tightrope
The ICC issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on November 21, citing allegations of war crimes. While the UK is a signatory to the Rome Statute and a State Party to the ICC, Israel is not. This distinction grants Netanyahu immunity under customary international law unless Israel explicitly waives it—a point central to Lord Wolfson’s argument.
Legal experts have also warned of the precedent the UK’s response could set for its own officials and representatives abroad. “Immunity is a key protection against lawfare targeting British officials. Undermining it could come back to haunt us,” one expert noted.
The Path Ahead
With questions mounting, calls for clarity are growing louder. Lord Wolfson has urged the Government to seek a definitive ruling from the High Court if it remains uncertain about its legal obligations. “This matter cannot be left to ambiguity,” he stressed.
Meanwhile, public and political pressure is intensifying for Keir Starmer and David Lammy to break their silence. As one critic put it: “The Government’s failure to address these concerns is not just embarrassing—it’s dangerous.”
Main Photo: Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. Picture by Simon Walker / No 10 Downing Street. CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
