France Sparks Backlash Over Netanyahu Immunity Claim

France Sparks Backlash Over Netanyahu Immunity Claim

France’s Stance on Immunity for Netanyahu Sparks International Backlash

France has sparked controversy by stating that international legal provisions could grant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immunity from arrest, despite warrants issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

According to a statement from the French Foreign Ministry, Israeli leaders like Netanyahu are covered by immunity rules governing states that are not parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. “A state cannot be held to act in a way that is incompatible with its obligations in terms of international law with regards to the immunities granted to states which are not party to the ICC,” the statement explained.

This interpretation raises complex questions as acknowledged by Jean-Noel Barrot, France’s foreign minister. Earlier this week Barrot indicated some leaders could potentially be immune from ICC prosecution, without specifying whether Netanyahu would be among them. When asked if France would execute an arrest warrant against Netanyahu should he step onto French soil, Barrot sidestepped.
What the ICC’s arrest warrants mean for Netanyahu

The ICC issued warrants for Netanyahu, former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif earlier this month. The warrants were issued in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Hague-based court’s decision to pursue the arrest warrants sent shockwaves through the international community.

The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, described the warrants as “binding” and encouraged their implementation. However, France’s nuanced stance on the warrants distinguishes it from several European states which have adopted a more robust approach.

Domestic and International Criticism

Netanyahu’s reported furious reaction was to urge French President Emmanuel Macron not to assist the ICC.
Unconfirmed media sources report that this issue was a key point of discussion during his recent calls with Macron, as Israel pressures global allies against cooperating with the warrants.

The ambiguity, a source of tension between France and the ICC. France has played a key role in securing the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The ceasefire, brokered in tandem with the United States, launched into effect Wednesday.

The arrest warrants issued by the international court against Netanyahu
Whether France would arrest Netanyahu if he traveled to process

Amnesty International, in urging France to clearly support the ICC’s authority surfacing criticism around the world. The French Green party, Greens (EELUC) leader, along with thecriticized France’s hesitance to implement the warrant rejects, calling France’s stance

amnesty international rejects ‘diplomatic immunity

"Deeply problematic," Amnesty International France president Anne Savinel Barras soon after called for recognizing "the unequivocal legal duty

“Rather than inferring that ICC indictees may enjoy immunity, France should expressly confirm its acceptance of the unequivocal legal duty under Bthe Sound like machines.the Romesbyentiononr’s position.”

ThisNews

Ran’t neglect to send French foreign ministers are viewed as an attempt to appease

The French government

France,受伤in. “France will play its full part," Barrot said.teens like France,

“It is none. Stance would

"(

“Againonce again so-called

The overall situation – which is highly

. The

the Kristen France will work for international unfailing

Ground for Feminist Concerns?

Nottingham.

Provincia es la que tiene la⁢ mayor cantidad de habitantes del país

## France’s Stance on ​Immunity for Netanyahu Sparks International Backlash

**Host:** Welcome back to the program. We’re joined⁤ today by Professor David ‍Cohen, ​an expert on international ⁤law and Middle Eastern politics, to discuss the controversy ⁢surrounding France’s stance on the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.​ Professor Cohen, France has sparked international backlash‍ by suggesting Netanyahu may have immunity from arrest. ⁣Can ⁣you explain their reasoning?

**Prof. Cohen:** That’s right.⁢ The French Foreign ⁢Ministry argued that its obligations under international law regarding immunities granted ⁤to states not ‍party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, could ⁢potentially shield Netanyahu from arrest. [[1](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/11/27/france-says-israels-netanyahu-has-immunity-from-icc-arrest-warrant)]

**Host:** But the ICC issued warrants for Netanyahu, former Israeli defense​ minister Yoav Gallant, and​ Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif, ⁢citing their roles in the ⁣Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doesn’t ⁤this‌ override any immunity claims?

**Prof. Cohen:** That’s where⁤ the​ complexity lies. While the ICC warrants are​ binding under international law, [[1](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/11/27/france-says-israels-netanyahu-has-immunity-from-icc-arrest-warrant)]the French interpretation raises questions about the scope of immunity provisions. France’s foreign minister Barrot, while acknowledging the complexity, has remained somewhat elusive, avoiding⁤ direct confirmation on whether Netanyahu would be immune should he visit France.

​ **Host:** This has created quite a stir internationally.

**Prof. Cohen:** Indeed. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep ‍Borrell,‍ has urged all member states⁣ to implement the warrants, highlighting their‍ binding nature. However, France’s stance ⁤contrasts with several‌ European states who have ⁤taken a⁢ more decisive approach.

**Host:** What are the ⁣potential consequences for France, both domestically and‍ internationally?

**Prof. Cohen:** Domestically, France faces criticism from those who see their position as undermining accountability for war crimes. Internationally, France risks straining relationships with other allies, particularly those committed to‍ upholding the ICC’s jurisdiction. It also sets a precarious precedent regarding the application of international law when dealing ‌with potent world leaders.

**Host:** Professor Cohen, thank you for providing us with your insights today.

Leave a Replay