Pre-Emptive Impunity: The Ritual of Official State Visits
CASE A: The Herzog Visit and Australian Deference Australia's invitation to President Isaac Herzog, framed as an act of solidarity with the Jewish community following a synagogue attack, proceeds despite a UN-established inquiry's 2025 finding that Herzog 'incited the commission of genocide.' This finding specifically cited Herzog's declaration that 'an entire nation' of Palestinians bears
responsibility for the October 7, 2023, events. The Australian government's statement, as reported, avoids addressing the legal implications of this finding, prioritizing state-to-state relations and a narrative of victimhood over international justice. CASE B: The Pinochet Precedent and Jurisdictional Ambiguity Contrast this with the 1998 arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in
London. Pinochet, then a senator-for-life and on a diplomatic mission, was detained following an extradition request from Spain. Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón invoked universal jurisdiction, arguing that crimes against humanity, including torture and disappearances committed during Pinochet's 1973-1990 regime, transcended national borders. The UK House of Lords ultimately ruled that former heads
of state could not claim immunity for torture committed after 1988, a decision that briefly expanded the scope of international justice. Pinochet's 1973 coup, backed covertly by the US (Church Committee Report, 1975) led to the killing or disappearance of 40,000 individuals. THE FRAMING: Selective Interpretation of 'Rule of Law' In Herzog's case, official statements from Canberra emphasize 'strong