Western double standards on international arrest warrants

Some countries’ reactions to the International Criminal Court warrants to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have revealed their inconsistencies, if not outright double standards.

Granted, this is the first time officials from a Western-allied country have been the subject of warrants issued by the court. However, given the extraordinary support that it enjoyed in the past, it is surprising how the same countries would come to the opposite conclusion in the case of Israel. While some, such as the US and Hungary, have outright rejected the International Criminal Court’s decision, others have issued convoluted opinions undermining them. Still others have said that maybe they were wrong in the past, when they were too quick to support the arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Immediately after the warrants were issued, US President Joe Biden issued a statement calling them “outrageous,” adding: “Let me be clear once again: whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

Some US lawmakers went overboard. In an interview with Fox News last week, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham threatened US allies: “If you are going to help the ICC as a nation and force the arrest warrant against Bibi (Netanyahu) and Gallant, the former defense minister, I will put sanctions on you as a nation.” He added more clarity: “To any ally, Canada, Britain, Germany, France. If you try to help the ICC, we’re going to sanction you … We should crush your economy, because we’re next.”

This is the first time officials from a Western-allied country have been the subject of warrants issued by the court

Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg

On other occasions, Graham emphasized that the court was not established so it can “come after us,” referring to fears that it could soon turn on US politicians over Washington’s role in Israel’s ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip. For some time, the US has strenuously lobbied countries not to cooperate with the court should it issue arrest warrants against US personnel. Now the threshold has been raised to include Israeli officials.

While a minority in Congress have adopted a more balanced approach, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton referred to the International Criminal Court as a “kangaroo court” and its prosecutor Karim Khan as a “deranged fanatic.” He ludicrously threatened military action against the court, The Hague and the Netherlands, a close US ally, if the Israeli officials were to be detained and put on trial, citing The Hague Invasion Act of 2002 as allowing such action.

Although a military invasion of an ally is outlandish, the court itself could be sanctioned if American lawmakers get their way, meaning its American-based financial dealings and funding could be in jeopardy. This would make its work more difficult.

While US politicians appear to be under a spell when it comes to Israel and the International Criminal Court, it is surprising that some other nations, which have invested in the past in protecting international law administration, including this court, are now doubtful.

Take France’s initial reaction to the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. Le Monde reported last week that the court “has been dealt a harsh blow by one of its founding states, which also prides itself on being the ‘homeland of human rights.’” It cited Paris’ “cryptic statement undermining both the authority of this judicial body and the arrest warrants.”

France at first said that the arrest warrants were “legally complex,” before the French government implied that it would not comply with the court’s decision because Netanyahu enjoys immunity due to Israel not being a signatory to the Rome Statute, the court’s founding treaty.

It is surprising that some nations, which have invested in the past in protecting international law administration, are now doubtful

Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg

The French Foreign Ministry also issued a statement saying that, “France intends to continue to work in close collaboration with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli authorities to achieve peace and security for all in the Middle East.” Out of all the G7 countries, only France has cited alleged immunity for Netanyahu and the US has outright rejected the court’s action without citing immunity. The rest of the grouping have been silent or issued ambiguous statements.

Paris later tried to climb out of the “immunity” trap it set for itself, because France enthusiastically supported all previous International Criminal Court warrants, even when they were issued for individuals whose countries were not members. The argument is legally void because, if the officials of a country can become immune just by not being a signatory to the statute, then all that the perpetrators of war crimes or crimes against humanity need to do is decline to join the court or withdraw their signatures from its treaty, leaving the court ineffective and useless.

From a legal point of view, the crimes cited by the court in the arrest warrants fit the descriptions set forth in the Geneva Conventions and, more relevantly, the Rome Statute itself, for the definition of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court took six months to deliberate over the prosecutor’s request.

Its judges are among the world’s most highly regarded lawyers and scholars of international humanitarian law, including for example Theodor Meron, the 94-year-old American lawyer and professor of international law. Meron was born in Poland in 1930, emigrated to Palestine in 1945 and later became a senior Israeli official. He served as a judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals.

After all, as Josep Borrell, the former EU chief diplomat, said: “Respecting the ICC is the only way to have global justice.” As he left office last week, he added some parting advice to his successors: “Use our leverage,” meaning the EU’s, adding, “We have leverage but we do not want to use it.”

• Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the Gulf Cooperation Council assistant secretary-general for political affairs and negotiation. The views expressed here are personal and do not necessarily represent the GCC. X: @abuhamad1