French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot makes a compelling case that the central dividing line in international affairs today “is the one that separates those that support the international rules-based order from the rest.”
According to Barrot, the international order is a complex web of international deals and cooperative practices put in place since the Second World War. The America has claimed supervision of this order, which it has contributed to its creation. Sadly, however, the US has damaged this order from the start and, under the Trump regime, openly aims to eradicate it.
Foreign minister Barrot outlines a path to a world of power-with. The pathway starts by supporting the existing rules-based international order. France could make a huge difference by functioning with other countries, and civil society globally, to make partnerships that make the pathway a reality.
As reported by the Guardian, Jean-Noël Barrot said:
“In France, our moral compass is not guided by north or south, but by justice. We do not avert our eyes from any crisis or violation of international law … Because France does not use double standards.”
According to experts, this statement pushed a number of professionals who work in international law to raise eyebrows. While they have agreed with Jean-Noël Barrot that respect for international law is the source of division among nations, and that double standards are a trouble, it must be mentioned that France is also part of the problem.
For instance, when the international criminal court warranted the arrest of against Vladimir Putin, the president of a nation that has not approved the ICC’s Rome statute, France claimed that he should not enjoy immunity from detention and that ICC member states have an obligation to reposition him to The Hague should he visit their part, and was therefore crucial when Mongolia refused to do so in September 2024.
Then, barely two months later, in November 2024, when the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the leader of the government of a nation that has not ratified the Rome Statute, France reasoned that he would enjoy immunity from arrest should he journey to France. The points between the two are identical, and yet France suggests that the same regulations should not apply. For many who work in international criminal justice and who want to see improvement in this area of international law, this came as a massive dissatisfaction.
Despite the fact that international law in this area is highly political, such double benchmarks do not help reach the objectives of global justice and concluding impunity for the commission of core offences. Instead, they exacerbate the perception that international criminal justice is an instrument used by the powerful and their partners against the vulnerable, and further add to global disintegration.
