On 1 April 2015, Palestine became the 123rd state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) of 17 July 1998. According to the statute’s principles, Palestine, like any ICC member-state, must ‘exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes’. However, Palestine is a special case in ICC history for several reasons. First, the question of Palestine’s state- or non-statehood characterises and continues to dominate discussions on Palestine and the ICC. Palestine’s membership of the ICC goes beyond the case of Palestine itself, having political and legal consequences for the ICC and international criminal justice more broadly. Second, the Palestinian-Israeli Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from 1995, better known as the Oslo II Accords, limits the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, including its criminal jurisdiction. Third, membership in the ICC is strongly opposed by Israel and parts of the international community, as it is feared that this (rather strategically political step) sets an end to peace negotiation efforts. By contrast, within Palestinian society hopes seem to be high that ICC membership will be a useful tool in peace aspirations with Israel, as became clear from the interviews conducted for this paper. Two major goals are connected with the assignment to the Rome Statute: progress in the Palestinian ambition for statehood and justice for alleged atrocities on Palestinian territories by both sides. While the latter would suggest that trust in and acceptance of the ICC are high in Palestine, it is worth taking a closer look at ‘who implements these [ICC] processes, what needs they respond to, and how particular [judicial] interventions are ultimately understood by affected populations’. Or, put more simply, who in particular accepts the ICC and international criminal justice and how, and what opinions are held by different actors in Palestine on the ICC.