It said the Israeli leader was covered by immunity rules that apply to states which are not a party to the ICC. Israel is not an ICC member.
“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,” the French statement said.
While this technicality may be true, it still seems like there should be a mechanism to hold people accountable for genocide that they don’t have to agree to beforehand. Saying “oh we can’t arrest him for crimes against humanity because he didn’t already agree to be arrested for them should he ever commit them” is a diplomatic copout and a moral failure of the international framework.
Let me play devil’s advocate: who gets to say what is a human rights violation? And I am not talking about what happens on the ground, so put your pitchforks away. I’m talking about how it is defined in international law–what happens when a country like Russia and puppets defines gay rights as a human rights violation.
Point is, there is absolutely no way to get states to agree on any of this and if it was binding, then it is a power that can and will be abused for geopolitical points.
I think principles of law are only enforceable at a state level. Almost by definition of sovereignty. Above the state level, there can only be treaties and geopolitics.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of international law.
I’m talking about how it is defined in international law
There are various widely adopted treaties that give specific definitions for crimes against humanity. In this case, the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Point is, there is absolutely no way to get states to agree on any of this
And yet 196 states, including France and Israel, have ratified these conventions (fully or in part). 125 states, including France but not Israel, have ratified the Rome statute and thus accept the ICC jurisdiction. States agree to these treaties because of diplomacy: you get taken less seriously if you don’t ratify these.
Of course, this system of international law breaks down when states flagrantly break it without repercussions, like Israel and France in this case.
I think when it comes to moves as flagrantly anti humanitarian as this it’s important to name names instead of letting the particular spineless cowards hide behind the name of their country.
Thanks… What did this guy do? Did he get to unilaterally make this call? (Serious, I have no idea how France works).
Maybe you should try smoking more kush if your head is so far up your ass you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Someone can be democratically elected, yet then act to undermine those same democratic processes that got them there.
Netanyahu continues his ruthless conquest against Palestinians and Lebanese despite how unpopular it is with Israelis. He knows that he won’t get re-elected, and when he doesn’t he’ll have to face the consequences of his actions in international court.
All you’re doing with your comment is aiding and abetting a fascist, apartheid, genocidal regime. Get real.
Is putin immune too?
What a fucking disgusting joke
“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,” the French statement said.
Anyone want to take a guess what percentage of ICC warrants are issued for people from countries like that? I suppose, this being France, that they actually will protect some random African warlord as well.
