France's foreign ministry has said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enjoys "immunity" from prosecution before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC last week issued arrest warrants…
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.
It isnt even technically true. The ICC has already clarified that this does not refer to the arrests of individual heads of states, but rather seizing states assets and the like.
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.
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.
Oh wow, I can be immune to law if I just don’t accept the court’s rule of law?
France really going hard with the sovcit arguments.
It isnt even technically true. The ICC has already clarified that this does not refer to the arrests of individual heads of states, but rather seizing states assets and the like.
I’m sure this defense was used at Nuremberg after the second world war - unsuccessfully.
Doesn’t that let off every two bit dictator for the last 70 years
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.
There are various widely adopted treaties that give specific definitions for crimes against humanity. In this case, the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
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.