France Faces Criticism Over Netanyahu Immunity Claim
Following the decision by the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benajmin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, France’s stance has sparked controversy.
While the french government initially signaled its commitment to upholding its obligations as a signatory to the ICC’s founding document, it shifted course, arguing that Netanyahu enjoys immunity because Israel is not a member state. This came after Netanyahu’s cabinet agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon backed by France.
The decision contrasts sharply with France’s earlier stance towards a similar warrant issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin. In that case, France reaffirmed its commitment to the ICC statutes.
A spokesperson for the French foreign ministry stated, "A state cannot be held to act in a way that is incompatible with its obligations in terms of international law with regard to immunities granted to states which are not party to the ICC.”
The statement added, "Such immunities apply to Prime Minister Netanyahu and other ministers in question, and must be taken into consideration should the ICC ask us to arrest them and hand them over.”
Global Leaders Divided on ICC Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu
France’s position on the Netanyahu warrant disagreeing with its commitments as a signatory to the Rome Statute has led to international criticism. Many see the move as setting a dangerous precedent of exempting individuals from facing justice.
The ICC itself had previously clarified that Article, 98 of the Rome Statute, which is cited by France, does not provide immunity. In fact,
the ICC insists
that, Article 27 of Rome Statute clearly indicates that the immunity does not bar the court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.
Further fueling the gust of criticism, the ICC had previously ruled against this very same contention, underlines the ICC does not recognize this argument. The court, in 2019, ruled
that, while the referenced an a “procedural rule”, not a "fountain of immunity". Furthermore
a recent ruling by the court demonstrated pronounce on
theICC asserting that Mongolia violated its obligations
when failing to arrest Putin during a visit.
"A cornerstone principle of the ICC statute is that no one is above the law, including heads of state sought for arrest, such as Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu," stated
Amnesty International, directly calling out France
Amnesty International, noting France’s stance “runs counter to France’s fundamental obligations as a member state of the ICC”.
France Raises Eyebrows With Distance from ICC Obligations
The UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy
while publicly indicating he would continue
engagement with Netanyahu, acknowledged he is obligated to refer Netanyahu to the domestic court system
claiming these types of warrants
The contrast between these two stances underscores the complexities of international law and the interpretation of immunity. While France initially appeared ready to cooperate with the ICC, its
latest decision mayl represent
**France Faces Divided on ICC Arrest Warrant
The ICC issued arrest warrants
neharnessing the nuances
hervor**
Mili
after requesting confirmation. A French foreign ministry official said on condition of anonymity
", assuming that Israel’s Non-membership exempts individuals
that
exploration of ICC obligations "A state cannot be held to
and
rance’s ties with Israel. It seemed to apply a different standard
As YitzAmerican exempts individuals
Article
those named seek come into our country that doesn’t allow me
" the Herzegovina
of jurisdiction over such
These clotted.
The courts
will make their determination under our law,” Lammy
Maintained
How does France’s stance on Netanyahu’s immunity compare to its stance on the ICC warrant against Vladimir Putin?
## France Faces Criticism Over Netanyahu Immunity Claim
**Interviewer:** Welcome back to the show. Today we’re discussing the controversy surrounding France’s decision not to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite an international arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court. Joining us to discuss this is Professor Sarah Jones, an expert in international law at [University name]. Professor Jones, thank you for being here.
**Professor Jones:** Thank you for having me.
**Interviewer:** France initially indicated it would uphold its obligations as a signatory to the ICC’s founding treaty. What changed?
**Professor Jones:** That’s right. France initially seemed committed to cooperating with the ICC. However, they’ve now argued Netanyahu enjoys immunity because Israel isn’t a member state of the ICC. This follows a ceasefire agreement in Lebanon that was backed by both France and Israel [[1](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/france-says-it-cant-arrest-netanyahu-because-icc-immunity)].
**Interviewer:** This seems contradictory to France’s stance on a similar warrant issued against Vladimir Putin.
**Professor Jones:** Indeed. France reaffirmed its commitment to the ICC statutes when the warrant against Putin was issued. This apparent double standard has drawn heavy criticism. It raises concerns that France may be prioritizing political expediency over upholding international law.
**Interviewer:** The ICC itself has clarified that the article France is citing does not grant immunity in this case. Can you shed light on that?
**Professor Jones:** You’re referring to Article 98 of the Rome Statute. France argues that it prevents them from arresting Netanyahu. However, the ICC has repeatedly stated that Article 27 of the same statute clearly indicates that immunity does not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction. In fact, the ICC ruled in 2019 that Article 98 is a “procedural rule,” not a ”fountain of immunity” [[1](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/france-says-it-cant-arrest-netanyahu-because-icc-immunity)].
**Interviewer:** So, what are the potential consequences of France’s decision?
**Professor Jones:** This sets a dangerous precedent. If states can selectively ignore ICC warrants based on political considerations, it undermines the court’s authority and weakens the international justice system as a whole. It could embolden other leaders to commit atrocities knowing they might escape accountability.
**Interviewer:** Professor Jones, thank you for your insightful analysis of this complex situation.
**Professor Jones:** My pleasure. I hope this discussion helps shed light on the gravity of this issue.
