– The principle of universal jurisdiction arose after World War II and was recognized in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which set out the rules in the event of armed conflict. Over time, this principle has been consolidated by other major international conventions. For its part, the European Parliament has seen its powers increase, particularly since 2009 with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty strengthened the co-decision that allows this institution to intervene in budgetary matters, to propose amendments to the legislative texts presented by the European Commission and to validate the external agreements concluded. In addition, the European Parliament is linked to the national parliaments. From this perspective we can assume that it is in a way the repository of the democracy clause. In the case of Morocco, one cannot speak of a universal competence granted to the European Parliament, allowing it to act in the direction of Moroccan citizens. Indeed, universal jurisdiction has broader judicial implications than a simple, non-binding resolution that is passed. It goes further because it confers jurisdiction to prosecute foreigners even if they have committed crimes outside the state’s territory.

– If it is not a matter of universal jurisdiction, on what legal basis does Parliament base its interference?

– First of all, it should be noted that this institution has 26 commissions, including the one for foreign affairs. Then, under the advanced status granted to Morocco in October 2008, it was a question of launching an enhanced political dialogue, including interparliamentary cooperation. Hence the creation of a joint parliamentary commission between Morocco and the EU in 2010. We can therefore assume that the “democratic conditionality clause” with which the European Parliament feels equipped was the basis of its actions, apart from political considerations (different political sensitivities) or geopolitics (geopolitical calculations) of his walk.

– Can the less powerful countries, especially African and Arab ones, act in the same logic reciprocally and judge cases that take place in Western countries?

– There is no photo! We have therefore already examined the principle of universal jurisdiction, which is normally embodied at the multilateral level by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Furthermore, we know that the Security Council has the exclusive right to trigger armed intervention against a country as defined in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. We’re not on that register. As for countries, including African ones, we know that some, like Senegal, have incorporated universal jurisdiction into their penal codes. The other institutions you mentioned in your question don’t have that ability or competence.

– For years, Arab, African, Asian states, etc. have denounced European interference in particular and Western interference in general. What can these countries do to put an end to this kind of interference? Are there international bodies other than those provided by the UN that could enable them to take action against this?

– Readers should be assured that universal jurisdiction is not automatic and carries consequences. There are prerequisites to enable it. First, it concerns the most serious crimes, particularly genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. Then international jurisdiction (e.g. the ICC) intervenes in the name of the subsidiarity principle only incidentally, namely when the national courts fail. We are not in this situation with the above-mentioned resolution of the European Parliament. However, it should be remembered that the states of the European Union have practically all advocated universal jurisdiction in their legislation.

– What are the legal specifics of decisions taken by bodies such as the European Parliament?

– The European Parliament has no jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union decides on this. However, it is recalled that the European Parliament has the possibility to send a committee of inquiry into certain facts or allegations related to human rights violations, but with the consent of the national authorities. The precedent was set after the so-called Gdeim Izik events in 2010. After its “investigation”, the then European Parliament proposed to the UN the inclusion of a human rights monitoring mechanism at the level of MINURSO.

– If there are no legal consequences, what are the other possible repercussions of this decision on Morocco?

– As for the implications of the decision of January 19, 2023, they remain limited to the political sphere and have no legal significance for at least two main reasons. Firstly, the above resolution is in the nature of a recommendation. In addition, Morocco is a sovereign state, especially since it is not a member of the European Union. However, we should not underestimate the “clout” of the European Parliament, because it can refer to the “executive” or even “legislative” bodies of the European Union and its member states: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Court of Justice of the European Union , the national parliaments. He also has the opportunity to challenge the High Representative on foreign affairs and security issues. In short, since the European Parliament’s resolution has no direct legal effect, it could have political implications through ricochets.

– If we cannot speak of world jurisdiction, the fact remains that in this case we are dealing with a blatant form of interference. How could Morocco protect itself from this?

– The best defense is attack. In other words, our country has enough resilience and immunity to even the rules of the game and influence the above decision. Certainly one cannot deny that this question is complex. Still, Morocco would benefit from increasing its European proactivity by multiplying safeguards and preventing such scenarios. In addition, the Kingdom has made significant progress in reforming the judicial system and in the area of ​​fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, including those of journalists. However, as we are bound by international and regional commitments in this area, the implementation of some of them is proving to be muted by internal pressures and field data. In other words, relevant global standards should also be balanced with cultural relativism. Therefore, Morocco should constantly strive to anticipate such maneuvers. These, as everyone knows, were orchestrated by parliamentary groups that were hostile or ignorant of the deep realities of the country. Furthermore, the geopolitical timing of this resolution is not innocent. Ultimately, the future of partnership relations between Morocco and the European Union will depend in large part in the light of the next appeal decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the question of the validity of sectoral agreements (agriculture and fisheries) binding the two parties.