A/HRC/13/53 an alternative, encouraging or formally requesting the International Committee of the Red Cross to examine the topic. D. Implementing the report of the United Nations Fact-finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict: universal jurisdiction 16. Among the most controversial, yet consequential, recommendations of the FFM report, is its endorsement of seeking accountability by way of “universal jurisdiction” through national judicial systems that contain such legislative authorization. The recommendation is formulated as follows: “In the context of increasing unwillingness on the part of Israel to open criminal investigations that comply with international standards, the Mission supports the reliance on universal jurisdiction as an avenue for States to investigate violations of the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, prevent impunity and promote international accountability.”19 17. In addressing ordinary international crimes, such as piracy or counterfeiting, it has long been the case that national courts exercise their authority to attach legal consequences, including for crimes, to behaviour that takes place beyond territorial jurisdiction. What is new is the assertion of this authority in relation to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture. Most countries do not have such an authorization or do not exercise their authority in relation to war crimes committed outside national territory. For those that do, it is possible to pursue allegations of war crimes in relation to those who acted on behalf of either Israel or Hamas during Operation Cast Lead, to arrest, indict, prosecute, and punish. 18. Although there are political ways to insulate potential defendants from such a legal process, in national courts reliance on universal jurisdiction is not subject to the sorts of constraints that block efforts to achieve accountability within the United Nations system. As indicated in the FFM recommendation, recourse to universal jurisdiction is only deemed appropriate in those situations where there are substantial grounds to believe that a government cannot or will not take advantage of its own prerogative (and duty) to investigate authoritatively on its own. That is, the first line of defence against impunity is through the governmental procedures of the State whose nationals are suspected to be perpetrators. Some Israeli journalists and public figures have called on the Israeli Government to fulfil this obligation, arguing that even if the FFM report can be set aside because of its supposed bias and the auspices under which it was produced, this does not mean that the IDF acted in full accordance with international humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead.20 19. It has been reported that the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time of Operation Cast Lead and currently an opposition leader, Tzipi Livni, cancelled a visit to London in December 2009, because of the expectation that she would be arrested and charged with war crimes.21 A spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that an arrest warrant had been issued in Britain charging Ms. Livni with orchestrating the 19 20 21 8 A/HRC/12/48, para. 127. For example Professor Avi Sagi of Bar Ilan University, Haaretz, 14 December 2009. Available at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=1134917. “Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni ‘cancels London visit over prosecution fears’”, The Daily Telegraph, 14 December 2009, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ middleeast/israel/6811578/Israeli-opposition-leader-Tzipi-Livni-cancels-London-visit-overprosecution-fears.html. GE.10-10260