It isn’t an option. Canada would have to withdraw their support for the ICC, if they were to ignore one of their rulings. Carney can’t just decide to do that on his own. It would need to be legislated.
Wait so are you saying that ICC rulings are in fact enforced by the judicial branch (like any other arrest warrants) and not the executive? That would be great because I was just about to lament on here that they seem to depend on the willingness of the executive in most countries. Which is the precise reason why we leave law enforcement to a separate branch
However, I would assume they would probably hand him over to the Hague for prosecution, rather than try him in Canada…even though they have the legal authority to do so.
My point was that this is not a decision that Carney can make, unilaterally. By law, Canada is obligated to arrest him if he comes to Canada. Which means “Carney being Carney” has nothing to do with it. Canada would have to not only change its domestic laws…they would have to redefine their alignment with international laws.
They would just “forget” about arresting him or purposefully started some kind of long procedural judicial consultation (“something, something, Diplomatic Immunity”), for long enough that Carney had time to properly lick Netanyahu’s arse and the latter left Canada.
Following that there would be some theatrical political performances on the theme “we could never imagine this could happen” including some deeply emotional “lessons were learned” at the end for that oh so very special “we’re really genuinelly sorry and this will never happens again (until it does)” juice.
I have serious doubts about Canada’s “absolute readiness” given that Carney is Carney.
It isn’t an option. Canada would have to withdraw their support for the ICC, if they were to ignore one of their rulings. Carney can’t just decide to do that on his own. It would need to be legislated.
Wait so are you saying that ICC rulings are in fact enforced by the judicial branch (like any other arrest warrants) and not the executive? That would be great because I was just about to lament on here that they seem to depend on the willingness of the executive in most countries. Which is the precise reason why we leave law enforcement to a separate branch
It’s actually both branches, since law enforcement falls under the executive. Canadian law has been directly aligned with international law for decades. This means that if Netanyahu ever set foot on Canadian soil, the RCMP would be obligated to arrest him.
However, I would assume they would probably hand him over to the Hague for prosecution, rather than try him in Canada…even though they have the legal authority to do so.
@Archangel1313 @eestileib There is a big difference between “legislative requirement” and “enthusiastic support”
My point was that this is not a decision that Carney can make, unilaterally. By law, Canada is obligated to arrest him if he comes to Canada. Which means “Carney being Carney” has nothing to do with it. Canada would have to not only change its domestic laws…they would have to redefine their alignment with international laws.
I’m happy with this. I don’t want particular politicians to be able to unilaterally decide on these things.
They would just “forget” about arresting him or purposefully started some kind of long procedural judicial consultation (“something, something, Diplomatic Immunity”), for long enough that Carney had time to properly lick Netanyahu’s arse and the latter left Canada.
Following that there would be some theatrical political performances on the theme “we could never imagine this could happen” including some deeply emotional “lessons were learned” at the end for that oh so very special “we’re really genuinelly sorry and this will never happens again (until it does)” juice.