Gallic Stubbornness: France, Netanyahu and the ICC Arrest Warrants
The comity of nations, at least when it comes to international humanitarian law, took a rather curious turn with the announcement by France that it would regard Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s immunity as unimpeachable even before an arrest warrant approved by the International Criminal Court. This view was expressed despite France claiming to be a strong proponent of the ICC and international law.
On November 27, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot had mooted the point on Franceinfo radio that France, while being “very committed to international justice and will apply international law based on its obligations to cooperate with the ICC” had to still consider the limits of the Court’s own statute, which “deals with questions of immunities for certain leaders.” Giving himself room to exit a potential legal tangle, he merely left it up to “the judicial authorities to decide.”
The central reason for not cooperating with the ICC on this point centres on the play of Articles 27 and 98 of the Rome Statute. The former makes it clear that, “Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person […] shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction.” The provisions of the latter prevent the Court from proceeding with a request for surrender or assistance requiring the requested State “to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State” unless cooperation had been obtained from that third state for a waiver of the immunity.
A statement from France’s Foreign Minister merely served to show that the warrant’s effectualness should be gauged by whether Israel was a member of the Rome Statute, an interpretation as disingenuous as it was inaccurate. “A state cannot be held to act in a way that is incompatible with its obligations in terms of international law with regards to immunities granted to states which are not party to the ICC.” It followed that Netanyahu and his ministers had the necessary immunities “and must be taken into consideration should the ICC ask us to arrest them and hand them over.”
Rather shoddy lip service to a proud legal and political tradition supposedly shared by Israel and France follows. Both shared a “long-standing friendship”. Both were “democracies committed to the rule of law”. Both showed “respect for a professional and independent justice system.” These were remarkable observations, given the provisional measures and opinions issued by the International Court of Justice about Israel’s operations in the Gaza Strip and, more broadly, the Occupied Territories.
These include the genuine risk that genocide is taking place in Gaza (the case begun by South Africa is ongoing), the deprivation of necessities, instances of famine and starvation, and the illegal status of the settlements that involve laws and practices of dispossession and separation constituting racial discrimination and apartheid. And what are we to make of Netanyahu’s authoritarian attack on Israel’s judicial system itself, intended to give more free rein to executive power?
The French approach waters down the effect of the warrants by effectively rejecting ICC jurisdiction over Israel’s officials and commanders, despite the court’s own finding that it had jurisdiction by virtue of Israel’s operations on Palestinian territory and the accession to the Rome Treaty by the Palestinians. This did not impress the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its French member organisation, the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH), which emphasised the importance of Article 27. Suspicion about the effectiveness of international law, according to Nathalie Tehio, President of the LDH, “dangerously undermines it at a time when it is urgently needed.”
Relevantly, Tehio noted that no arguments of any equivalent immunity had ever been raised regarding the ICC warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite Russia not being a party to the Rome Statute. This revealed a “double standard” that damaged France’s reputation, “particularly in relation to the countries of the South.”
Other countries in the European Union are also flirting with the idea that arresting Netanyahu would simply not be advisable, adopting various slippery arguments. Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani rather missed the point in suggesting that the warrant was not feasible as the Israeli PM would “never go to a country where he can be arrested.” (His colleague, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto, disagreed.) With this muddled reading of international justice, Tajani went on to declare that arresting Netanyahu was “unfeasible, at least as long as he is prime minister.” A closer reading of the Rome Statute would have put Tajani’s dim doubts to rest.
The issue of executing warrants for high-ranking leaders and commanders accused of violating international humanitarian law comes down to sometimes tawdry political calculation over diligent legal observance. France has merely confirmed this state of affairs, following previous approaches taken by Mongolia (towards Putin) and South Africa (towards Omar al-Bashir). Having been one of the key negotiating parties behind the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah that commenced on November 27, Emmanuel Macron and his diplomatic team will not miss out on posterity’s calling. As the ministry statement promises, “France intends to continue to work in close collaboration with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli authorities to achieve peace and security in the Middle East.”
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
8 comments
Login here Register hereBut will the people of Palestine be granted justice from international law or does that promise not extend to the ruins of Gaza ?
So much for France. Just another Zionist vassal.
Gold medal hypocrisy..who knew?
Not at all surprising really. disregard for Palestinians particularly, Arabs generally has been a hallmark of post colonial and US policy since WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Nothing changes.
The French have always been cheese-eating surrender monkeys and a quick search of French military victories in Google gives a complete blank so their opinions in such matters as this are not worth listening to. Perhaps removing them totally from any involvement with the ICC is the best way forward. They have proved time and time again that they collapse when the slightest bit of a fight has to be put up. As spineless as jellyfish.
Context is everything. French citizens have been targeted by Islamic extremists repeatedly, most notoriously on Friday, 13 November 2015, when 130 people died and 416 were injured.
In the sense of reciprocal behaviour, it ought not be forgotten that France’s colonial role in northern and western Africa, and in particular, Algeria, was a textbook example of brutal oppression that saw the deaths of hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples at the hands of the colonial oppressors.
As it’s said, what goes around comes around, not that that’s, strictly speaking, an excuse for what happened more recently in France, but human behaviour being what it is, it’s entirely understandable that radical Islamists would be interested in exacting revenge upon the French at some appropriate time.
Estimated numbers of Jewish French run close to half a million, while estimated numbers of Arabic French between 4 to 7 million.
Given the general sentiment within that country that the Arabic people are dangerous, untrustworthy, potentially lethal, it’s perfectly understandable that a politician like Macron, and by extension his government, would extend support towards Netanyahu.
Amendment: France was also a principal supporter in the Syrian conflict aimed at the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power. This brought them into conflict with ISIL (Daesh), and thus set in train the events that unfolded in November 2015 in Paris.
Notwithstanding, their colonial legacy wouldn’t have helped.
Recent protests in New Caledonia (May 2024) attest to the still manifest Gallic stubbornness in relation to their assumed right to inhabit other peoples’ lands.
I now read that Israeli officials are saying that Gaza is not a suitable place for human occupation as all infrastructure (water, sewerage, electricity) have been destroyed and food and other aid is not getting through or is being pillaged.
The message from Israel appears to be that the two million Palestinian people in Gaza should go somewhere else.
We all knew that this was the Israeli ‘final solution’ objective but to be so blatant about is quite stunning.