|
No it doesn't. The linked article which is not a court ruling, it's a report from the "Office of the Prosecutor", says: "While Israel maintains that it is no longer
occupying Gaza, the
prevalent view within
the international community is
that Israel remains an occupying power
under international law,
based on
the scope and degree of control that it has retained over the territory of Gaza
following the 2005 disengagement.
In accordance with
the reasoning
underlying this
perspective, the Office
has proceeded
on the basis that the
situation in Gaza
can be considered within the framework of an international
armed conflict
in view of the continuing
military
occupation by Israel.
The analysis conducted
and the conclusions reached
would
generally
not be
affected
and
still be
applicable,
if
the Office
was
of the view, alternatively,
that
the law applicable in the present context
and
in light of
the Israel-Hamas
conflict is
the law of
non-international
armed conflict.
Given the crimes of
possible relevance to the present situation, which are substantially similar in
the context
of
both international and non-international armed conflicts, it is
not necessary at this stage to reach a conclusive view on the
classification of
the conflict.
Additionally, as
the protection accorded by the rules on
international armed conflicts is broader than those relating to internal
conflicts, it seems appropriate,
for the
limited
purpose of a preliminary
examination,
in cases of doubt,
to
apply those governing international armed
conflicts." So they're basically just discussing the context for this (whether the situation meets some legal criteria to get to the next stage, by the way it didn't). They say it's not really necessary to reach a conclusive view (i.e. at least the prosecutor has no conclusive view, not to mention the court) because it doesn't affect the outcome of this legal analysis. |
In his statement on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur wrote that international humanitarian law applied to Israel "in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."[41] Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, Oxfam, the International Committee of the Red Cross, The United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, international human rights organizations, US government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and a significant number of legal commentators (Geoffrey Aronson, Meron Benvenisti, Claude Bruderlein, Sari Bashi and Kenneth Mann, Shane Darcy and John Reynolds, Yoram Dinstein, John Dugard, Marc S. Kaliser, Mustafa Mari, Iain Scobbie, and Yuval Shany maintain that Israel's extensive direct external control over Gaza, and indirect control over the lives of its internal population mean that Gaza remained occupied.