Last month Lord Hermer told the BBC he would not allow political considerations to influence his conclusions if the ICC were to issue an arrest warrant.
“My advice [on an arrest warrant for Mr Netanyahu] would be legal advice, based on analysis of the law,” he said.
“It’s not for the attorney to dictate what a government chooses to do. The role of the attorney is to provide fearless legal advice as to what the law requires, what the contents of the law is, and where the law takes you. And that’s what I’m going to do.”
Following the arrest warrants being issued on Thursday, Downing Street said the UK government respected the ICC’s independence and remained focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
The court also issued a warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, who Israel says was killed in July, over alleged war crimes in relation to the 7 October 2023 attacks against Israel.
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel criticised the ICC for drawing a “moral equivalence” between Israel’s actions in Gaza and 7 October attacks.
She called on the government to “condemn and challenge” the court’s decision, describing it as “concerning and provocative”.
After winning power, the new Labour government scrapped its predecessor’s plan to challenge the right of the ICC to issue arrest warrants, saying it was a matter for the judges to decide.
The impact of the warrants will depend on whether the court’s 124 member states – which do not include Israel or its ally, the US – decide to enforce them or not.
US President Joe Biden has called the arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister “outrageous”, saying there is “no equivalence” between Israel and Hamas.
Both Israel and Hamas reject the allegations made by the ICC.