The courts of The Hague are giving tools to States to strengthen international law against the dynamics of anything goes, imposition and force. However, some of the most powerful Western nations are not only ignoring them, but are questioning them, even though most are signatories to the Rome Statute that governs the International Criminal Court.
The repercussions of these positions are extremely serious and their consequences are modifying international relations.
France protects Netanyahu
In an unusual statement issued this week, the French Foreign Ministry appealed to the alleged immunity – which is not such – of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister Yoav Gallant from the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, Paris stated that France and Israel are “democracies committed to the rule of law and respect for professional and independent justice.” However, the reality is that neither the Court contemplates immunity for this type of case nor does Israel respect the professional and independent justice of the Hague Court.
Several Israeli media have published that Netanyahu demanded this statement from Macron, in exchange for accepting Paris mediation for a 60-day ceasefire in Lebanon, an agreement that does not unblock the underlying conflict and that allows the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanese territory these first weeks.
France’s contradiction is summarized in its same statement, in which it recalls that the Rome Statute, of which Paris is a signatory, “requires full cooperation with the International Criminal Court,” but then points out that there are immunities that “apply to the Prime Minister Netanyahu and other ministers.” With this, the Macron Government intends to allege that the Israeli Prime Minister can avoid arrest because Israel has not signed the ICC State.
This interpretation is erroneous, and this is being emphasized by leading experts in international law. Article 27 of the Rome Statute indicates that the mandate of the Hague Court “applies equally to all persons without any distinction based on their official capacity and, ”in no case, exempts a person from criminal responsibility.” This was established by the International Criminal Court itself a few years ago with the arrest warrant against the former president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir.
Like Russia or Israel, Sudan is not a signatory to the Statute governing the ICC, but that did not exempt Al-Bashir from an arrest warrant. “Netanyahu does not have immunity,” the former founding chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, told this newspaper a few days ago.
As one of the 125 signatory countries of the Court, France has a duty to cooperate, and “that duty to cooperate extends to complying with arrest warrants,” says Yasmine Ahmed, director of Human Rights Watch in the United Kingdom.
France’s position appealing to Netanyahu’s alleged immunity before the International Court is unusual
Right to remove and put
To understand what repercussions positions such as France’s have, it is useful to compare Western reactions to the arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin – issued a year and a half ago – with those now against Netanyahu.
The United States, France, Germany and the rest of the European Union countries welcomed the ruling against Putin and welcomed it without questioning it, even though Russia is also not a signatory to the Statute governing the ICC. However, now the answer is different. The double standard is notable.
The US has not signed the ICC treaty and has categorically rejected the arrest warrant against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Secretary of State Antony Blinken even raised the possibility of sanctioning the International Court in May. Washington has never recognized the jurisdiction of the Hague courts for crimes committed by the United States or allies such as Israel.
European countries are signatories to the Rome Statute. That is why they have not been as blunt as Washington, but some have expressed reluctance about the arrest warrants against Netanyahu.
In Germany, the chancellor’s spokesman has said that his government supports the International Criminal Court but has also suggested that it would not arrest Netanyahu: “I might be tempted to say that I find it difficult to imagine us making arrests in Germany on this basis.”
If Israel can violate the UN framework and international law with the permission of the West, why shouldn’t someone else do it?
The Dutch Prime Minister, Dick Schoof, has expressed himself in similar terms, suggesting that Netanyahu could visit the Netherlands without being arrested. The Austrian Foreign Minister has gone further and has indicated that the decision against the Israeli president “attacks the credibility” of the ICC.
Other European States have stressed their commitment to the International Criminal Court, which is logical, since they are signatories of the Statute, but they have avoided specifying whether they would comply with the arrest order if the Israeli prime minister set foot on their territory or crossed its space. air.
Taking into account the questions publicly expressed by several European governments, the scarcity of voices that have specifically defended the need to comply with the arrest warrant against the Israeli prime minister is striking. Leaders such as the Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, who is already leaving his post, have expressed themselves in these terms.
The Spanish Government has said that “it will comply with the obligations imposed by the Rome Statute and support for said international court.” “We will respect the obligations, just like the rest of the member states of the Criminal Court,” the Foreign Minister, José María Albares, indicated this Thursday, responding to questions from journalists.
Spain is a signatory to the State of Rome and, as such, is obliged to support the mandate of the International Criminal Court. Therefore, Albares’ statement is limited to recalling the duties of our country as a member of the Hague Tribunal.
In a context in which important European nations, in an unprecedented way, are questioning the capacity for action of international law and compliance with the mandate of the ICC, it would be interesting for Spain to clarify how it positions itself regarding the statements of Germany, France and the Netherlands. and what he would do if Netanyahu traveled to Spanish territory. For now, Albares has avoided expressing himself in this sense: “I don’t like making political fiction,” he answered this week.
These rejections or ambiguities are relevant because they throw overboard the strength of international law.
The consequences in the international order
Why are the ambiguities of several European countries and the publicly marked limits on the ICC’s mandate relevant? Because they throw overboard the potential strength of international law understood as a universal tool, for everyone, without distinction, and because they call into question the legitimacy of the Court, an important global justice body.
The determination of the US and its allies to support Israel or avoid putting obstacles in its path drags the world into a new context. If Israel can violate the framework of the United Nations and international law with the permission of the West, why won’t another State do it tomorrow?
To date, the European Union has not adopted any pressure measures against the Netanyahu Government. Fourteen months later, the Tel Aviv Army continues to carry out massacres in Gaza, maintains a blockade on the entry of necessary aid, causing deaths from starvation and disease, illegally occupies and applies apartheid against the Palestinian population. More than 45,000 people have died from Israeli attacks in Gaza, 17,000 minors. Despite this, the EU trade association agreement with Israel, whose article 2 requires respect for human rights by the parties, remains in force.
France, Germany and the Netherlands, but also other European countries that choose ambiguity in their actions in the face of the ongoing genocide, put the protection of Israeli interests before international law, contributing to its weakening.
The double standard of the US and Europe offers us an exact photo of a global scenario in full change, in which the West is laying out a red carpet for more impunity while claiming that it is the maximum representative of human rights, freedom and civilized order. . Some great power rulers believe this will be self-serving and ignore the risks. The price of this contradiction will be high. Today it is already for the Palestinian population, tomorrow it could be for others.
The choice that Israel’s allies have faced for fourteen months is simple: either continue allowing, by action or omission, massacres, occupation and apartheid or pressure to stop this situation and actively defend international law and the rulings of the courts of The Hague. Some of the most important powers continue to opt for the first option, clearing the way for the law of the jungle, of the strongest, of the most willing to use brute force to subdue the others.
Source: www.eldiario.es
