Afterthought: France’s Position on Netanyahu’s Immunity
The decision by the judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza marked a watershed moment for supporters of international justice.
However, last Wednesday, France—a nation that prides itself as the “homeland of human rights” and a founding member of the ICC—shocked many by declaring that “immunities apply” to the Israeli prime minister. This announcement, which undermines the Court’s authority, dealt a severe blow to the global pursuit of justice.
Attempting to justify its position, France emphasized its commitment to fulfilling international obligations under the Rome Statute while invoking Article 98 of the ICC’s founding text. According to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this article stipulates that a state cannot act inconsistently with its obligations under international law regarding the immunities of officials from states not party to the ICC. Since Israel has not signed the Rome Statute, its leaders retain these immunities. France’s statement clarified that such protections “apply to Prime Minister Netanyahu and other ministers concerned” and must be considered in the event of an ICC request for their arrest or surrender.
This decision tarnishes France’s credibility and confirms long-held suspicions in the Global South about Western hypocrisy and selective application of international law. Time and again, the West appears to wield the ICC as a tool against adversaries, while shielding allies. France’s stance sharply contrasts with the enthusiastic support Western leaders gave to the ICC’s warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accused of war crimes involving the deportation of Ukrainian children. Like Israel, Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute, yet the application of international justice has been anything but consistent.
Further complicating the matter, the G7’s response mirrors France’s ambivalence. While the group has pledged to “respect their respective obligations,” it offers no details. The United States, a dominant force within the G7, remains staunchly opposed to the ICC and its jurisdiction, especially over American citizens. This self-serving approach undermines the Court’s legitimacy and entrenches a two-tier system of justice: one for the West and its allies, another for the rest of the world.
The roots of this hypocrisy can be traced to several factors. The United States’ opposition to the ICC, amplified during the Trump administration, created an atmosphere of selective engagement. Washington’s policy of sanctioning ICC officials investigating U.S. actions sent a strong message to its allies. Additionally, France’s calculations likely include its strategic interests in the Middle East, where Netanyahu remains a critical player. With recent peace accords in Lebanon and efforts to stabilize the region, France may see Netanyahu’s immunity as a necessary compromise to safeguard fragile diplomatic gains.
Conclusion: France’s decision is a betrayal of the principles underpinning international justice and exposes the double standards that weaken the credibility of institutions like the ICC. True justice requires consistency and impartiality—qualities sorely lacking in this case. If the ICC is to serve its intended purpose, it must transcend political expediency and enforce the law without favor or fear. Nations like France must choose whether they will champion a world governed by principles or perpetuate a system where justice is contingent upon alliances. Without such resolve, the vision of a global rule of law will remain an unfulfilled promise.
WJJH – 30.11.2014
Opinion: France’s recent declaration of immunity for Israeli leaders in light of ICC arrest warrants for war crimes has raised questions about its commitment to international justice. This stance, seen as hypocritical, contrasts sharply with its support for the ICC’s actions against other leaders, highlighting a selective application of international law based on political alliances.
In what kind of world do we wish to live 