International justice is a commodity, and right now, France is trying to buy it cheap.
The announcement that a French judge has opened an inquiry into the 2018 assassination of Jamal Khashoggi is being celebrated by human rights groups as a breakthrough. It is framed as a triumph of universal jurisdiction, a brave stand for a free press, and a warning to autocrats everywhere.
That narrative is complete fiction.
Let us stop pretending that European judiciaries operate in a vacuum of pure moral righteousness. They do not. Having spent decades analyzing how international trade routes, arms deals, and sovereign wealth funds intersect with judicial grandstanding, I know the reality is far more cynical. This inquiry is not a serious legal pursuit of justice. It is a highly calculated piece of diplomatic theater designed to generate political leverage while changing absolutely nothing on the ground.
The mainstream press buys into the lazy consensus that international law works like domestic law. It assumes that if a judge signs a paper, justice is being served. But looking closely at the mechanics of transnational law reveals this inquiry for what it actually is: a performative exercise in diplomatic posturing.
The Illusion of Universal Jurisdiction
To understand why this French probe is a dead end, we must first dismantle the myth of universal jurisdiction. Human rights lawyers love this concept. The theory goes that certain crimes are so heinous that any country can prosecute them, regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of the victims and perpetrators.
In the real world, universal jurisdiction is applied selectively, safely, and only when the political cost is zero.
Consider the baseline facts of the Khashoggi case. The crime occurred inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. The victim was a Saudi national with American residency. The alleged perpetrators are Saudi state actors. France has zero territorial connection to the crime. Its sole hook for opening this inquiry is the claim that a French citizen or entity was somehow impacted, or that the generalized shock to the conscience of mankind gives a Parisian magistrate global police powers.
This is legal overreach masquerading as moral duty.
I have watched European courts play this game for twenty years. Spain used to be the champion of this tactic, issuing international arrest warrants for foreign dictators like Augusto Pinochet. What did it actually achieve? It created immense diplomatic friction, paralyzed trade negotiations, and ultimately forced the Spanish government to rewrite its own laws to strip its judges of that very power when China threatened economic retaliation over a Tibet inquiry.
France is walking into the same trap, but with a different motive. French magistrates operate with a degree of independence that allows them to launch investigations that the Elysee Palace would prefer they did not. However, the French state possesses a massive arsenal of bureaucratic and diplomatic tools to ensure these inquiries never result in actual disruption to state interests.
The Saudi-French Economic Reality Check
Let us look at the data the mainstream media ignores. France does not exist in an ethical bubble; it exists in a cutthroat global market where Saudi Arabia is a primary client.
- Arms Sales: France is one of the top weapons exporters to the kingdom, regularly supplying naval vessels, armored vehicles, and air defense components.
- Energy Security: As Europe continues to navigate volatile energy markets, Saudi oil remains a critical pillar of Western economic stability.
- Sovereign Wealth: The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) holds billions of dollars in European equities and infrastructure.
Are we seriously to believe that a French magistrate is going to disrupt a multi-billion-dollar bilateral trade relationship?
Imagine a scenario where this judge actually issues an arrest warrant for a high-ranking Saudi official close to the Crown Prince. What happens next? The warrant sits in an interpol database. The official simply avoids vacationing in the French Riviera. Meanwhile, Riyadh quietly reroutes a major aerospace contract from Airbus to Boeing, or decides to invest its next five billion dollars in London or New York instead of Paris.
The French government knows this. The Saudi government knows this. The only people who do not seem to know this are the commentators cheering for this investigation. It is a low-risk, high-reward exercise for the French legal system: they get to look virtuous on the international stage while knowing full well that the execution of any actual legal penalty is impossible.
Dismantling the People Also Ask Premise
When people look at this case, they invariably ask the wrong questions. They ask: Will this French investigation bring Khashoggi's killers to justice?
The brutal, honest answer is no. The premise of the question assumes that the Saudi state will cooperate with a foreign power investigating its own security apparatus. It will not. Sovereignty trumps international goodwill every single time. Riyadh has already conducted its own trials, which it considers closed. It views any foreign intervention as a direct violation of its national sovereignty.
Another common question is: Does this prove that international law can hold powerful leaders accountable?
In reality, it proves the exact opposite. True accountability requires enforcement. If you cannot enforce a subpoena, freeze assets, or extradite suspects, you are not practicing law; you are writing an expensive op-ed. This inquiry highlights the utter toothlessness of unilateral cross-border investigations. It demonstrates that international law is only enforceable against weak states or defeated regimes. When applied to major economic powers or critical geopolitical allies, it devolves into paperwork.
The Cost of Performative Justice
There is a distinct downside to my cynical view, and I will admit it openly: it breeds apathy. If we dismiss every international legal effort as theater, we risk undermining the very idea that global norms exist. It is a fair critique.
But the alternative is worse. Accepting performative justice at face value creates a false sense of progress. It allows Western nations to wash their hands of complex geopolitical compromises by pointing to an independent judge who is "looking into it." It substitutes real, material foreign policy pressure with legalistic virtue signaling.
If France, the United States, or any other Western power genuinely cared about holding Riyadh accountable for human rights abuses, they would not rely on a lone magistrate in Paris. They would use the actual levers of statecraft:
- Imposing strict, non-negotiable conditions on arms transfers.
- Enforcing targeted Magnitsky Act sanctions on high-ranking decision-makers, not just low-level operatives.
- Reducing reliance on sovereign wealth capital that comes with political strings attached.
They will not do any of this because the economic and strategic cost is too high. It is far easier to let a judge open an inquiry that will grind on for a decade, generate zero convictions, and occasionally provide a headline to satisfy domestic human rights constituencies.
The Mechanics of a Closed Loop
This inquiry will follow a predictable, weary trajectory. The judge will request documents from Saudi authorities. Those requests will be ignored or rejected on national security grounds. The judge will then request intelligence briefings from French agencies. Those agencies will invoke state secrecy to protect their sources and diplomatic channels.
A few years from now, the case will be quietly shelved, or a default trial will be held in absentia. A French court might find a few absent individuals guilty, delivering a symbolic verdict to an empty courtroom.
No one will go to jail. No trade deals will be canceled. No oil shipments will stop.
The competitor articles calling this a turning point are selling a comforting lie. They are telling you that the global order is governed by rules that apply equally to the powerful and the weak. It is a pleasant thought, but it is bad analysis. The Khashoggi inquiry is not the beginning of accountability; it is the final, bureaucratic burial of it, wrapped in the flag of French jurisprudence. Stop looking for justice in a system designed to produce nothing but press releases.
