Daniel Reisner is widely recognized as one of Israel’s leading Public International Law experts. From 1995-2004, Reisner served as Head of the Israel Defense Force’s International Law Department. Between 1994 and 2000 Reisner served as a senior member of Israel’s peace delegations with both Jordan and the Palestinians, working in the triple role of negotiator, legal advisor and drafter. In this capacity, Reisner advised Prime Ministers Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu and Barak, and participated in all of the negotiation sessions and summits, including those in Amman, Wye River, Camp David and Taba. Parallel to this professional career, Daniel Reisner pursued an active academic career, teaching in three of Israel’s leading academic institutions, has published articles on a variety of issues. He is a highly sought after lecturer and panelist, both in Israel and abroad. Daniel Reisner is a Partner at Herzog, Fox, Neeman for Public International Law, Defense and Homeland Security and is Vice-President of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. Concurrently, Reisner continues to advise senior members of the Israeli government on a variety of issues relating to the Middle East peace process, international law and security law.
This case will probably be one of the most important cases, in identifying the direction that the Court is going to go – is it going to retain professional objective position or is it going to become a more political and biased organization?
Daniel Reisner lays out three major criticisms of the ICC Prosecutor’s Request seeking a ruling by Pre-Trial Chamber I on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction. First, the Prosecutor cherry-picked the issues she wished to discuss, while ignoring core and fundamental international law questions; second, the Prosecutor followed a certain legal viewpoint on one issue but chose – on the same legal question – the opposite viewpoint on another issue when it worked in her favor to justify her position on jurisdiction. Finally, the Prosecutor’s heavy reliance on political, and not legal, decisions, such as those by the UN General Assembly. Further, Daniel Reisner describes Israel’s support towards the initial ideals set out for an International Criminal Court and the idea of ending impunity for the most serious crimes – and the disappointment felt in Israel when it became clear that the Court could not live up to its expectations and was turning into a tool for politics rather than law.