Except Isreal isn't a signatory nation, and all of the land in question is part of Israel. That's not a judgement either way, there have been some attempts to change that, but the ICC doesn't actually have any jurisdiction here.
Apparently "Palestine" (which is not a state/country) signed on and due to that the court ruled (in some other case) that it does have jurisdiction. Also the "Palestine" side of the warrants are against Hamas which also feels weird (Hamas is also not a signatory nation and many suggest that Hamas != Palestine). Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial? What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
Generally when states sign treaties it applies to the de jure state, not just what it de facto controls.
> Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial? What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
Almost certainly nothing. They are obligated to help, but realistically if the palestine authority had the ability to capture hamas leadership i imagine they would have done so a long time ago, as the two sides fought what was essentially a civil war a while back.
The only UN approved borders are the 1967 ones I think. Interesting to see that it would apply to a lot of the settler colonies in the West Bank as well.
>Also the "Palestine" side of the warrants are against Hamas which also feels weird (Hamas is also not a signatory nation and many suggest that Hamas != Palestine).
The ICC prosecutes individuals not states, so there's no contradiction here.
>Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial?
Yes
>What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
There's no penalties built into the statute. It tends to have diplomatic blowback. See [1] for a prior example.
