1.

What Happened & Context  Rome Statute, Article 127(2): A State shall not be
discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the
Date and circumstances obligations arising from the Statute while it was a Party,
including any matter that was already under consideration
 On March 11, 2025, Rodrigo Duterte was arrested by the prior to the withdrawal.
Philippine National Police and Interpol at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino  Residual jurisdiction refers to the continuing legal authority
International Airport, following an ICC arrest warrant alleging of a court or institution—even after a state's withdrawal
crimes against humanity (extrajudicial killings during the from a treaty—to investigate and prosecute crimes
2011–2019 “war drugs”) committed while the treaty was still in force for that state.
 He was held at Villamor Air Base and then flown to The Hague,  Application to Duterte’s Case: The Philippines was a State
becoming the first former Asian head of state detained by the Party to the Rome Statute from November 1, 2011 to
ICC March 17, 2019. The alleged crimes (extrajudicial killings
during the “War on Drugs”) occurred within that period.
Even though the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in
Timeline of investigations
2019, the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes
committed during the time the Philippines was a member.
 ICC began preliminary examination in 2018, escalated to full Thus, the ICC's issuance of an arrest warrant in 2025 is
investigation in 2021, paused and resumed in 2023 due to legally valid under international law, invoking residual
inadequate domestic response. jurisdiction.

Political backdrop  The principle of complementarity holds that the ICC is

a court of last resort. It can only investigate or prosecute if
 The arrest coincided with a political rift between the national legal system is unwilling or unable to
the Marcos and Duterte families; President Marcos Jr. genuinely carry out proceedings.
cited interpol obligations, not politics, as the cause.  Rome Statute, Article 17(1)(a)-(b): A case is inadmissible
before the ICC if it is being investigated or prosecuted by a
Legal Basis — International & Domestic state that has jurisdiction unless the state is unwilling or
unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or
A. ICC Jurisdiction Despite Withdrawal prosecution.
 Application to Duterte’s Case: The ICC’s pre-trial chamber
 The Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, but found that the Philippine government failed to conduct
the ICC retains residual jurisdiction over crimes genuine investigations into the drug war killings. Although
committed while the country was a member (Nov 2011–Mar Philippine authorities claimed they were investigating, the
2019) ICC determined these efforts were: Superficial, Lacked
 Under Article 127, treaty obligations for ongoing investigations independence, Targeted only low-level offenders, Failed to
still apply after withdrawal.
 reach senior policymakers like Duterte. This triggered the  Extradition and surrender procedures under Philippine
ICC’s jurisdiction under the complementarity principle. extradition laws and treaties are seen as integral to lawful
enforcement.

Critical perspectives

 Legal experts argue without enabling domestic

legislation implementing the ICC treaty, such arrest lacks
Summary: How These Doctrines Justify Duterte's Arrest constitutional basis.
 Interpol Red Notices do not compel arrest without domestic
Doctrine Explanation Application to Duterte law or extradition framework. Enforcement without these is
potentially unconstitutional and violates national sovereignty.
ICC retains jurisdiction
Duterte’s alleged crimes
Residual over crimes committed
occurred 2011–2019, 4. National Government Position
Jurisdiction when PH was still a
before PH withdrew
member
ICC acts only if  President Marcos Jr. asserts full compliance with Interpol
PH’s investigations were obligations, not ICC directly, noting failure to assist Interpol
Complementarit national justice
deemed inadequate and could harm future cooperation.
y is unwilling or
insincere  The Supreme Court has similarly noted treaty protocols
unable to prosecute
demand domestic implementation via legislation before
enforcement becomes legal.
B. ICC vs. Domestic Law: Complementarity Principle
5. Implications Under Public International Law
 The ICC operates on complementarity: it acts only if the state
is unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate. Principle Impact
 ICC determined the Philippines' efforts were inadequate, ICC can try past crimes despite
justifying international action. Residual jurisdiction withdrawal ibanet.org+8icc-
cpi.int+8philstarlife.com+8
3. Validity Under Philippine Law ICC steps in when domestic justice is deemed
Complementarity
insufficient
Supportive legal interpretations Withdrawal doesn't negate past consent;
State consent and
enforcement w/out domestic law remains
sovereignty
 UP Law faculty emphasize that the treaty’s consenting status contentious
remains binding and complementarity applies even post- Supports justice via cooperation; cannot
Interpol’s role
withdrawal. override national law or sovereignty
6. Validity of Arrest  Legal basis:
➤ Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute: "A State shall not be
 Internationally: Valid, based on residual ICC jurisdiction and discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the
complementarity doctrine. obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party..."
 Domestically:  Application: Even though the Philippines withdrew in 2019,
 Government position: Procedurally lawful via Interpol the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while
cooperation and international duties. the country was a member. Hence, the arrest warrant
 Opposing view: Without implementing legislation, issued in 2025 is valid under residual jurisdiction.
executing ICC warrants may exceed constitutional
authority and infringe sovereignty. 2. Complementarity Doctrine

 Rome Statute, Article 17: The ICC will only intervene if the
state is "unwilling or unable genuinely" to investigate or
Was the arrest valid? prosecute the crimes.
 Application: The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber found that: The
 Yes, the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte by the Philippines failed to conduct genuine investigations, especially
International Criminal Court (ICC) is valid under Public against high-ranking officials. Domestic proceedings only
International Law, based on specific provisions of the Rome focused on low-level police officers, and did not meaningfully
Statute and doctrines recognized in international criminal hold those most responsible accountable. Therefore,
jurisprudence. the complementarity principle was satisfied, and the ICC was
justified in exercising jurisdiction and issuing the arrest
I. LEGAL BASIS warrant.

1. Jurisdiction Over the Crime (Temporal and Subject-Matter) II. RELATION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

 Rome Statute, Article 5 and Article 11. The ICC has A. Sovereignty vs. Treaty Obligations
jurisdiction over crimes against humanity,
including extrajudicial killings and systematic attacks on  Under public international law, a sovereign state may limit
civilians, as alleged in Duterte's drug war. its sovereignty through voluntary treaty obligations. When
 Temporal jurisdiction: the Philippines ratified the Rome Statute in 2011:
➤ The Philippines was a State Party to the Rome  It consented to the ICC's jurisdiction.
Statute from November 1, 2011, to March 17, 2019.  It bound itself to cooperate, including in surrendering
➤ Alleged crimes took place during this period, particularly suspects.
from 2016–2019 when Duterte was president.
  Even after withdrawal, it remains bound for acts that 1. Current Military Escalation
occurred while the treaty was in force — a rule recognized
in international treaty law (see Vienna Convention on the Timeline & Scale
Law of Treaties, Article 70).
 Israel launched Operation Rising Lion on June 13, 2025, striking
B. Accountability of Heads of State over 100 sites in Iran—including nuclear, military, and energy
infrastructure in Tehran, Isfahan, Natanz, and Arak.
 Rome Statute, Article 27: "Official capacity as a Head of  Israel claims these strikes have delayed Iran’s nuclear
State or Government shall in no case exempt a person weapons capability by 2–3 years.
from criminal responsibility..."
 Application: As a former president, Duterte is not Iran’s Retaliation
immune from arrest or prosecution for crimes under the
ICC’s jurisdiction. This aligns with customary international  Iran responded with hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones,
law principles. leading to at least 657 Iranian fatalities(including civilians) and
around 24 Israeli deaths.

Hybrid Tactics

 Mossad conducted covert drone sabotage of Iranian air

Conclusion: Is the Arrest Valid? defenses and missile infrastructure, facilitating airstrike
impact.
Answe
Question Legal Basis
r A. Civilian & Humanitarian Consequences
Rome Statute Arts. 5, 11,
Does ICC have jurisdiction? ✅ Yes
127(2)  Attacks hit civilian structures—hospitals (e.g., Soroka),
Can ICC proceed despite PH Residual jurisdiction (Art. residential buildings, power and fuel infrastructure—raising
✅ Yes
withdrawal? 127(2)) alarm among humanitarian organizations.
Did the complementarity Art. 17: Failure of genuine  Mass evacuations are underway; international calls for de-
✅ Yes escalation are intensifying.
principle apply? domestic prosecution
Is Duterte’s official status a
❌ No Art. 27: No immunity B. Public International Law Framework
defense?
Is the arrest consistent Treaty law, accountability of
✅ Yes a. Jus ad Bellum – Legality of Use of Force
with public international law? state leaders, state consent

ISRAEL AND IRAN

  UN Charter, Article 2(4) & Article 51: Use of force is only  Many were intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome, David’s
lawful if authorized by the UN Security Council or Sling, and Arrow systems, but some struck Tel
as self-defense against an armed attack. Aviv, Beersheba, and Haifa.
 Israel’s Position: Claims anticipatory self-defense, citing an  Iran has also allegedly used multi-warhead ballistic
imminent existential threat from Iran’s nuclear ambitions. missiles, a first for its arsenal.
 Opposing Legal Views: Scholars like Marko Milanović and
the International Commission of Jurists argue: No evidence 3. Casualties & Humanitarian Impact
of an imminent Iranian armed attack; prohibition on the
use of force. Civilian infrastructure strikes may amount  Iran: ~650 deaths (including 260 civilians); over 2,000
to war crimes . injured.
 Israel: At least 24 dead, over 300 injured.
b. Jus in Bello – Conduct of Hostilities  Civilian infrastructure in both countries has been hit:
hospitals, power plants, and residential zones.
 Even under armed conflict conditions, principles
of distinction, proportionality, and precaution must be 4. Hybrid Warfare
upheld.
 Strikes on hospitals, energy facilities, or dual-use  Israel reportedly employed Mossad sabotage teams inside
infrastructure risk breaching these norms. Iran, compromising radar and drone systems before
strikes.
PART I: FACTUAL CONTEXT — ISRAEL–IRAN CONFLICT (June 2025)  Iran has disrupted energy and water grids in Israel via
cyberattacks.
1. How It Started
PART II: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW ANALYSIS
 On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a
coordinated aerial and cyber campaign against Iran. A. Jus ad Bellum — The Right to Resort to Force
 Targets included:
 Nuclear enrichment sites (e.g., Natanz, Arak, Fordow) 1) UN Charter, Article 2(4)
 IRGC missile depots and drone facilities
 Infrastructure believed to be linked to Iran’s weapons  “All Members shall refrain… from the threat or
program. use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State…”
2. Iran’s Retaliation  General rule: Use of force is prohibited.

 Iran launched over 1,000 drones and missiles toward 2) Article 51 – Self-Defense
Israel.
  Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent  Parties must distinguish between civilians/civilian objects
right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed and military objectives.
attack occurs…”  Concerns:
 Exception: Self-defense against an armed attack.  Iranian reports indicate residential zones, energy
plants, and hospitals hit.
 Israel’s Legal Justification  Israeli claims that Iran targeted hospitals and
 Claim: Preemptive (anticipatory) self-defense. apartment blocks via drone strikes.
 Basis: Iran was allegedly days away from crossing a
nuclear weapons threshold. 2) Principle of Proportionality
 Israel cites historical precedent (e.g., Osirak strike 1981)
and necessity to prevent existential threat.  Attacks causing excessive civilian harm relative to
the anticipated military advantage are prohibited.
 Critical Evaluation  Legal question: Were the strikes on nuclear facilities
 Anticipatory self-defense is controversial: (dual-use) justified, given the risk to civilian
 Not clearly recognized under the UN Charter. populations and environmental harm?
 ICJ (Nicaragua case, 1986): Self-defense only applies after
an armed attack occurs. 3) Precautionary Obligations
 Caroline Doctrine (1837): Permits anticipatory self-defense
if necessity is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of  Parties must take all feasible precautions to
means.” minimize civilian harm.
 Conclusion: Both Israel and Iran risk violating IHL if
 Conclusion: While Israel may claim urgency, international law civilian casualties were foreseeable and not
requires high standards of imminence, which many experts minimized. Strikes on hospitals may amount
argue are not met here. Therefore, legality is highly to grave breaches/war crimes under Article 8 of the
questionable under Article 51. Rome Statute.

B. Jus in Bello / International Humanitarian Law (IHL) C. Use of Force Against Nuclear Facilities

 Governing Rules:  Striking nuclear sites raises questions under:

 Geneva Conventions (1949)  Additional Protocol I, Article 56: Protection of works
 Additional Protocol I (1977) (customary law for non- containing dangerous forces.
parties)  IAEA safeguards: While not legally binding on military
conduct, these provide standards for peaceful nuclear
1) Principle of Distinction use.
  Attacking nuclear infrastructure endangers civilian life, Question Answer Legal Authority
breaches environmental norms, and may qualify Charter Art. 51; anticipatory
as indiscriminate attacks under IHL. force lawful? self-defense lacks solid Nicaragua Case
precedent
D. State Responsibility & Prohibition of Reprisal ✅ Partially, under self-defense,
Is Iran’s retaliation Article 51; IHL
but legality erodes with
lawful? principles
 Countermeasures involving force (reprisals) indiscriminate targeting
are prohibited under international law (see Articles on ⚠️ Potentially yes, if hospitals
State Responsibility, ILC 2001). Are civilian attacks Rome Statute,
or non-military infrastructure
 Israel and Iran each risk liability if their use of force war crimes? Art. 8
were deliberately targeted
exceeds lawful bounds or targets protected objects. ❌ Highly controversial; could
Are nuclear facility API Art. 56;
breach IHL and environmental
E. Customary International Law and Practice strikes lawful? Customary IHL
protection norms
✅ Yes. Violations of IHL and UN
 Repeated use of force without Security Council Does either side ILC Articles on
Charter norms trigger
authorization may erode the Charter framework. risk state State
responsibility under
 Legal scholars warn that normalizing anticipatory force responsibility? Responsibility
customary law
could undermine the prohibition on the use of force,
creating a precedent for global instability.

PART III: INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE & DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS

 UN Security Council: Emergency sessions held; China and

Russia oppose U.S.-Israeli action. U.S. warns of potential
involvement if Iran expands hostilities.
 IAEA: Condemns targeting nuclear sites.
 Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: Investigating
both sides for potential war crimes.

CONCLUSION — Legal Assessment

Question Answer Legal Authority

Is Israel’s use of ❌ Legality disputed under UN UN Charter; ICJ