An arrest warrant has been issued by French investigative magistrates against Bashar al-Assad, the deposed leader of Syria, for alleged involvement in war crimes, including the intentional attack on people, according to a legal source late Tuesday. The mandate was issued on January 20 in connection with an investigation into the death of Franco-Syrian national Salah Abou Nabour in a bombing raid in Syria on June 7, 2017.
What is the history of this arrest?
The use of prohibited chemical weapons on Syrian civilians prompted France to issue an arrest warrant for Syrian President Bashar Assad on November 15, 2023. French anti-terrorism prosecutors claimed Assad’s total immunity as a sitting head of state and asked the Paris appeals court to consider rescinding his arrest warrant in May 2024. The French international arrest warrant against Assad for alleged involvement in war crimes during the Syrian civil war was upheld by the Paris appeals court on June 26, 2024.
The lawyers that were involved in the case affirmed this decision. The attorneys said that this decision was the first time a national court had recognized that a head of state’s immunity is not unqualified. In October 2013, Syria became a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Three OPCW missions are being assigned by the UN to look into chemical weapons-related issues in Syria. These include the Investigation and Identification Team (IIT), which looks into the people responsible for the chemical attacks; the Declaration Assessment Team (DAT), which verifies Syrian declarations of the CW Program; and the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which is tasked with identifying the chemical attacks and the type of weapons used. The United Nations bodies received the conclusions.
France challenges Assad’s immunity in war crimes case
In pursuance of international law, it is important to execute an arrest warrant for a current or earlier head of state. Heads of state usually enjoy some degree of immunity from prosecution, but in situations involving grave human rights abuses, this defense is increasingly being attacked. The actions of the French judiciary imply that they believe that because of the suspected crimes against humanity performed by his administration, Assad’s current status has no safeguards by international law.
International law’s tenets of war crimes and crimes against humanity are consistent with the legal framework that French authorities are using. Many treaties and conventions, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Geneva Conventions, uphold these ideals. Despite having authority over major crimes, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide, the ICC has not been very effective due to things like political concerns and state collaboration.
The strategy used by France is part of a rising global movement to hold authorities accountable for grave human rights abuses. Furthermore, France’s measures can encourage other countries to follow suit. In addition to international attempts to hold offenders accountable, national courts can be used to pursue justice. According to the principles of universal jurisdiction, which permit states to bring criminal charges against individuals for serious crimes regardless of the location of the offense, several European nations have already started legal action against Syrian officials.
Assad power struggle: Russian support vs. growing opposition
Significant challenges are also remaining instead of this arrestment case. The recent hurdle is the presence of Assad in Russia. The Russian government was a big supporter of Assad throughout the civil war. They provided him with military support, which was a backbone for him to play the role of a leader. The results are uncertain about facing any challenge to Assad through the conditions of Syria right now. Now, he is not much stronger because he lost years of conflict with opposition areas but he has achieved the support of Russia as well as Iran. This raises questions about the actions taken by foreign nations for the consequences of Assad or its hold.
Syria was run as a totalitarian police state during Assad’s fiercely personalist dictatorship, which was characterized by severe repression, war crimes, and multiple human rights abuses. Although the Assad administration claimed to be secular, many political analysts pointed out that his government took advantage of the nation’s sectarian conflicts. Assad lacked his father’s allegiance and faced growing opposition to his authority while inheriting the power mechanisms and personality cult his father had fostered.
Many members of his father’s government consequently quit or were expelled, and ardent supporters from Alawite clans took their place in the political inner circle. Because Alawite supporters benefited from Bashar al-Assad’s economic liberalization initiative in the 2000s and took control of a sizable amount of the privatized industries and company assets, the program came to represent corruption and nepotism. The vast majority of Syrians were alienated by the government’s actions, especially the working classes in the country’s cities and countryside, who vehemently objected to the ensuing economic inequality that became blatantly apparent.
