277
Greece, Italy and France ignore ICC warrant as Netanyahu flies through airspace for Trump talks
(www.turkiyetoday.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
277 points (99.6% liked)
World News
38615 readers
393 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes.
Scramble jets, have air traffic control instruct them to land, and if they do not follow instructions then shoot to kill.
This is literally how all restricted airspace works.
Sure, but has that ever happened with a country's equivalent of Air Force One? I really doubt any country is about to take a step like that, let alone any big players that could have done anything else by now and still haven't. Basically, they aren't going to just comply, nobody is actually going to shoot them down, and any engagement would effectively be theatrical.
How do you know they will not comply with an order to land? No country has tried, despite their obligation to do so under the Rome Statute.
It's an assumption on my part, but no bigger than the assumption that they would meaningfully comply or be called to account, I don't think.
By no means am I saying it shouldn't be done, just that it seems pretty obvious it wouldn't be a practical expectation on either end at this point.
You don't just shoot down planes that pose no immediate threat, even though they contain people with warrants or are not allowed in the airspace.
Even Russian planes are not shot down when entering European airspace.
Right, you don't "just shoot down" planes. You order them to land, as they are in violation of your sovereign airspace, and in violation of international law.
Russian planes violating European airspace are not shot down, they are ordered to land and they comply. Planes violating "US airspace" in Iraq and Afghanistan were not shot down, because they complied when ordered to land.
And maybe I'm being pedantic, but a leader overseeing an ongoing genocide is an immediate threat of the highest order.
While I am also frustrated that many European states do not take their erga omnes obligations serious in regards to genocide, do I think shooting down a plane on the basis of a disputed warrant would not be a proportionate measure[^1].
Generally planes can be ordered to land, but if they ignore that call and there is no further threat (like many Russian planes), they will generally escort these planes until they are out of the airspace. States do this based on the prohibition of the use of force as defined in article 2 of the UN Charter.
[^1]: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1138, '[T]here appears to be a measure of agreement at least insofar as a State can respond proportionally to the violation of its airspace by foreign aircraft (see Korean Air Lines Incident [1983]). However, there is an equal measure of disagreement as to the exact limits of this right. In any case, the principle of proportionality must be applied for every action taken. However, even in the light of these prerequisites, it is still highly disputed whether the downing of an aircraft constitutes a legitimate means in terms of ultima ratio'.
Russian planes don't have an international arrest warrant. While illegal there's no law saying they should be forced to land. Netanyahu however does have an arrest warrant
You really think you can just fly into other countries airspace without permission and they will just let you?
Russian planes would have been told to turn around and GTFO at the very least, no way they would have been allowed to pass through EU airspace even if their destination is not the EU. Why aren't they even doing that?
They are indeed tracked down by fighter jets and followed out of the airspace. My point was more that international law doesn't allow a state to just shoot stuff, even after a warning, when there is no immediate threat.
And what do you think those jets would have done if the plane didn't comply and leave? Just shrug their shoulders?
I mean i would say that the people they have on board absolutely pose an immediate threat to human life, and have for decades
I share that sentiment.
It just doesn't mean international law means you can shoot whatever you want out of your airspace, nor if a state should want to set that precedent.
There are a lot of other things to consider, like which branch of international law is applicable here (not humanitarian law/law of armed conflict as there is no armed conflict between the concerned states and Israel).
Customary law is to be very careful shooting down planes that violates airspace (which I doubt is the case here, as I expect they were allowed to fly through their respective airspace).
Netanyahu is also not convicted yet. And not all states agree with the ICC's interpretation of head of state immunity.
There is some reality that needs to be taken into account, both that states have questionable views on Netanyahu, as well as that certain actions leads to unwanted consequences and/or precedents.
I'd rather focus on the fact that all states have an (erga omnes) obligation to prevent and concern themselves with the ongoing genocide, acts against humanity, and war crimes.
Finally, let's hope Netanyahu sets food in a state that will abide by the warrant and we see him in the Hague soon.