The International Criminal Court Committee Opens with Landmark Judgement and Heated Debate.

By: Jacobo Beyer Velez.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) committee in COSMUN 2026 began with guest speaker Joaquín Pérez, the COSMUN 2025 Secretary General, who gave the attorneys and judges a brief overview of the history of the committee, highlighting its historical significance as the first permanent international tribunal to prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity. Joaquín explained that the ICC operates under natural law, referring to universal principles like the preservation of life, the prohibition of murder, etc. It also operates under just positivism, which focuses on written and enacted laws. An important remark Pérez made explained that the ICC only intervenes when a national court fails to prosecute individuals, in this case, the alleged crimes against humanity in Palestine under Netanyahu's regime.

This was the committee's first case, and it sparked a heated debate. First, the attorney prosecutors started by accusing Benjamin Netanyahu of violating Human rights with the excuse of protecting his country. Attorney 2 went on to give an astonishing statistic: “By killing over 40,000 people, and of course, starving over 2 million people.” Throughout the debate, the prosecutors continued arguing that Israel used “excessive and disproportional force” as they mentioned on multiple occasions. The Defense argued that the objective of eliminating Hamas justified the high cost and what the prosecutors labeled as a genocide, debating about the civilian casualties, declining population growth due to the the lack of resources recieved by Palestine due to Israel seizing it, and the impact of military strategy on residential zones. The Defense also argued that Israel was acting under its legitimate right to self defense.

One of the main concerns addressed by the both sides of attorneys was that Hamas operates within civilian areas and protected structures, which resulted in the terrorist group using civilians as shields. The defense responds by stating that if there is any military operations inside these facilities, Israel is in all its right to attack and defend its sovereignty. However, Israel still decided to attack these places and argued that there were plenty of opportunities and alarms to evacuate these zones provided by the Israeli government, more specifically by the president. Referring to the topic about the seizing of medical products and sources, the defense remarks that they were seized because Hamas could use them and sell them to gain economic profit and invest on armament.

To conclude, the ICC committee's inaugural debate on alleged crimes against humanity in Palestine under Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership illuminated the profound tensions between Israel's right to self-defense and accusations of excessive force, disproportionate casualties, and humanitarian blockades. Prosecutors compellingly highlighted the staggering human toll—over 40,000 deaths and widespread starvation—framing it as a violation of natural law and international prohibitions on genocide. The defense countered with robust arguments on Hamas's use of civilian shields, legitimate military necessities, and proactive evacuation measures, underscoring the complexities of urban warfare. As the tribunal weighs these positions under principles of natural law and just positivism, its verdict will not only test the ICC's mandate to intervene where national courts falter but also shape global accountability for balancing security and human rights in protracted conflicts.