By Brian Iselin, Associate Editor
France’s statement this week that it cannot arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits the country is misleading and legally unsound. Citing diplomatic immunity, the French government effectively claimed its hands are tied. This interpretation, however, does not stand up to scrutiny under the obligations France has voluntarily assumed as a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). While the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations offers immunity to heads of state and government, this immunity neither applies to the Rome Statute nor shield individuals from ICC arrest warrants.
The ICC was created to hold those accused of the gravest international crimes accountable, regardless of their position. Its authority is rooted in the principle that no one — whether a president, prime minister, or monarch — is above the law. The Rome Statute’s Article 27 removes immunity from prosecution for all individuals under its jurisdiction, explicitly rejecting the protections that often come with political office. Netanyahu’s status as Israel’s prime minister does not alter this legal reality.
France’s obligations to the ICC are clear. Under Article 89 of the Rome Statute, State Parties are required to cooperate fully with the Court, including executing arrest warrants. ICC arrest warrants do not carry the limitations of national arrest warrants. By ratifying the treaty, France committed to supporting the ICC’s work without reservation. This means that should Netanyahu set foot on French soil, France is legally obligated to arrest him and surrender him to The Hague. Diplomatic immunity, as invoked under the Vienna Convention, does not apply to ICC cases, and suggesting otherwise conflates two entirely separate legal regimes.
This distinction matters. The Vienna Convention facilitates international diplomacy by shielding foreign officials from local legal proceedings. It ensures that heads of state can travel without fear of arbitrary arrest, which is vital for maintaining international relations. This implicitly recognises the vagaries of “local justice”. However, the Rome Statute was created to ensure accountability for crimes so serious they threaten humanity as a whole — genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. These are crimes for which no immunity can be claimed, precisely because of their extraordinary gravity. The ICC overrides traditional notions of diplomatic immunity to prevent leaders from using their positions to evade justice.
France’s declaration that it “cannot” arrest Netanyahu is thus a political statement, not a legal conclusion. The ICC’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu concerns allegations of crimes committed in Palestinian territories, over which the Court has recognized jurisdiction. Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute and its acceptance of ICC jurisdiction enable these proceedings, even though Israel itself is not a party to the treaty. As a member of the ICC, France is bound to honor the Court’s decisions, including its arrest warrants, regardless of Netanyahu’s diplomatic or political status.
Some may argue that France could seek an exception to its obligations. The Rome Statute allows for limited consultation — an application to the ICC judgess — under Article 97 if a State Party believes it cannot comply with a request. This provision is designed for genuine logistical or legal challenges, not for shielding individuals from accountability. France has not made any such application, likely because it knows an exception would not be granted. The ICC’s judges have consistently upheld the principle that no one is immune from prosecution for the crimes under its jurisdiction.
Failing to arrest Netanyahu would have serious consequences for France. The ICC has mechanisms to address non-compliance. Under Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute, the Court can refer cases of non-cooperation to the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the ICC’s governing body. The ASP, which consists of representatives from the 124 member states (soon to be 125), can impose sanctions or other measures against non-compliant states. Such a referral would not only harm France’s international reputation but also weaken the ICC’s ability to enforce its mandates. When powerful states disregard their obligations, they undermine the entire system of international justice.
Germany’s similar reluctance to act on the ICC warrant for Netanyahu highlights a broader issue. When major powers prioritize political convenience over legal obligations, they erode the credibility of international law. This reluctance emboldens those accused of the gravest crimes, signaling that accountability is negotiable. The ICC was established precisely to counter this kind of selective justice. Its mission is to ensure that victims of atrocity crimes see their perpetrators brought to justice, regardless of political pressure or diplomatic niceties.
France has long presented itself as a champion of human rights and international law. Its support for the ICC has been an important part of that image. Yet actions speak louder than words. By refusing to execute the warrant for Netanyahu, France risks being seen as a hypocrite — eager to promote international justice in principle but unwilling to enforce it when inconvenient.
This is not a matter of political preference or diplomatic strategy. It is a question of legal obligation and moral responsibility. France’s credibility as a defender of international justice depends on its willingness to act in cases like this. Anything less would betray the principles upon which the ICC was founded and undermine decades of progress in the fight against impunity.
The ICC exists because national systems often fail to hold powerful individuals accountable for international crimes. It was designed to close the gaps left by political considerations and diplomatic immunity. France’s statement about Netanyahu betrays an unwillingness to confront these realities. By invoking immunity where none exists, France undermines the very system it helped create.
France must choose: stand by its legal commitments and enforce the arrest warrant, or risk damaging the ICC’s credibility and its own reputation. The victims of international crimes deserve justice, not political excuses. Anything less compromises the fight against impunity and sends the message that some individuals remain untouchable, no matter how serious their alleged crimes.