Francija nima samo bedne ekonomske politike (Macronova ekonomska politika je daleč najslabša v zadnjih treh desetletjih; indikator tega je, da se celo Grčija danes dolgoročno zadolžuje ceneje od Francije), pač pa tudi bedno in nekonsistentno zunanjo politiko (Macron je znan po svojih pompoznih izjavah, ki jih že naslednji dan spremeni – od Kitajske, Ukrajine do Izraela). Francija je podobno kot Nemčija s svojim nesposobnim političnim vodstvom degradirala svojo moč in svojo kredibilnost v svetu. Postala je karikatura same sebe.

Spodaj je dober primer francoske bedne hipokrizije in nekonsistentnosti na primeru tiralice Mednarodnega sodišča za Netayahujem. Sramota.

_____________

Benjamin Netanyahu is immune to the ICC arrest warrant, the French foreign ministry assured us yesterday. The French have some skills in bending the law, testing its flexibility and durability, but this is a stretch that is ultimately bound to fail legally, though it may politically be a success.

The French argument is that Netanyahu is covered by immunity because he is the head of a government in a state that is not a member of the ICC. This legal argument won’t hold, according to legal experts on immunity.

First there is no extra-treatment for heads of states. According to Art. 27 of the Rome Statute, all wanted persons are equal before the court, including heads of state or government. And no immunities under international law may bar the court from exercising its jurisdiction.

Second, there is the definition of jurisdiction. Israel may not be member of the ICC, but the State of Palestine is. It was granted membership back in 2015. This means the court can investigate Israeli nationals for crimes committed in occupied Palestine, which includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

There is also no exception for France. All 124 signatories to the Rome Statute, including all EU member states, are legally obliged to arrest Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on their soil and hand them over to the courts. Member states are the enforcers of ICC arrest warrants, whether or not they agree with them politically.

There is one loophole, however. International law has one caveat provision for officials from non-ICC member countries. Art. 98 (1) stipulates that an ICC member country like France could waive an arrest warrant against someone like Netanyahu if that would force France to act inconsistently with its international law obligations on state or diplomatic immunity.

Art. 98 (1) has been used in the past by states that refused to hand over Vladimir Putin and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, both nationals of non-member states of the ICC. Jordan triggered Art. 98 (1) when it did not arrest Bashir in 2017. The second case was Mongolia, which refused to arrest Putin when he came for a visit in September, claiming that he enjoys immunity.

Both immunity pleas have been dismissed by the ICC as unfounded, and both countries have thus been found to be in breach of the Rome Statute. In its explanations, the ICC wrote that the reference to state immunity under Art. 98 (1) is related to the immunity of a state and its property, not its leaders or officials. A similar ICC ruling is expected in response to the French immunity plea for Netanyahu.

But perhaps from a French perspective the purpose of this plea is not a legal one but a political bargain. Could France play a long game with the ICC in return for Netanyahu agreeing to a cease-fire deal in Lebanon? The ICC arrest warrant is a big deal for Netanyahu and a bargaining chip that may make him override opposition from within his own coalition. A deal that treats one pain for another: France accepts admonition from the ICC for Netanyahu to accept overriding his far-right allies.

How far could they take it? What are the consequences for an ICC member state if they refuse to implement its arrest warrants? How long until the far-right allies pull out and bring Netanyahu’s government down? Is this just playing for time? It may give them a couple of months, enough to help a ceasefire deal getting off the ground and for Donald Trump to take over the negotiations. But could this be a sustained position? Inside the EU, if France were to follow this logic, this would open a schism between those who advocate adherence to international law and those who see it more as a suggestion that can be overridden by bigger geopolitical concerns. Watch that space.

Vir: Eurointelligence