Bruno Retailleau: the worst French Minister of the Interior in history, ignorant of laws and diplomatic customs.

The diplomatic standoff between Algiers and Paris continues to escalate, fueled by repeated accusations of non-compliance with international commitments. The latest episode unfolded after Algeria published its response rejecting France’s new initiative—a list of Algerian nationals subject to expulsion orders. French Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau quickly took to X (formerly Twitter) to lash out at Algeria once again, accusing it of violating its international obligations.

However, repeating an accusation does not make it true. This ongoing blame game demands a thorough examination of the facts to determine, once and for all, who is truly upholding international law and who is flouting it. Five key elements shed light on this issue.

1 – A Legitimate Algerian Refusal Based on Solid Legal Grounds

Contrary to France’s claims, Algeria did not reject the expulsion list out of sheer opposition. Its stance is based on a simple yet crucial legal reality: no bilateral agreement mandates the transmission of such lists. Neither past treaties between the two nations nor established diplomatic practices over the last 30 years support this unilateral French procedure.

Worse still, France, in its rush to bypass existing legal frameworks, opted for a threatening and coercive approach, using ultimatums and arbitrary deadlines to pressure Algeria into compliance. This method blatantly disregards the fundamental principles of international law, which rest on dialogue and mutual respect.

2 – A Battle Over Consular Protection

The core of this dispute extends far beyond bureaucratic procedures. It is, in essence, about the consular protection of Algerian nationals residing in France.

While Algeria remains committed to its duty of protecting its citizens—a right enshrined in international law—France seeks to obstruct this role. A key indication of this strategy is Paris’s deliberate avoidance of any reference to the 1974 Algeria-France Consular Agreement, which, in Article 33, obligates French authorities to inform Algeria of any decision restricting the freedom of its nationals.

Why this omission? Because acknowledging this agreement would completely dismantle France’s argument.

3 – The Misuse of the Chicago Convention

In his attacks against Algeria, the French Interior Minister has frequently invoked the Chicago Convention, alleging that Algeria is violating it by refusing to board individuals facing expulsion without consular travel permits.

Yet, this accusation is legally baseless. The Chicago Convention contains no provision that forces airlines to transport individuals against their will. On the contrary, the treaty explicitly grants airlines the right to refuse passengers whose documentation does not comply with the entry or transit requirements of the receiving country.

By threatening Air Algérie with retaliatory measures over a fabricated legal breach, France is engaging in sheer political maneuvering disguised as legal argumentation.

4 – Restrictions on Diplomats: A Blatant Violation of the 2013 Agreement

Beyond the expulsion dispute, the French Interior Minister has also boasted about imposing entry restrictions on Algerian nationals holding diplomatic passports.

However, such measures directly violate the 2013 Algeria-France agreement, which clearly states that any such decision must be preceded by official notification. By sidestepping this fundamental diplomatic rule, Paris is not only breaching a formal commitment but doing so in a deliberately public and provocative manner, further straining bilateral relations.

5 – Confusion Over the Diplomatic Visa Agreement

Recent reports in the French media have speculated about a possible suspension of the Algeria-France agreement on visa exemptions for diplomatic and service passport holders.

However, this discussion is riddled with misinterpretations.

First, the agreement in question is not the 2007 treaty, which was terminated over 12 years ago, but rather the 2013 agreement, which clearly outlines a structured procedure for its suspension or termination—starting with a mandatory notification from the party initiating the decision.

This means that France cannot unilaterally suspend the agreement without adhering to the very provisions it previously signed.

Who Is Really Violating Their International Commitments?

When these five points are examined objectively, the conclusion is undeniable: Algeria has remained fully compliant with its international obligations, while France—through its Interior Minister—is attempting to impose a distorted legal narrative dictated by political rather than legal considerations.

By relentlessly leveling baseless accusations and engaging in diplomatic strong-arming, Paris is exposing its own contradictions rather than Algeria’s supposed failings. As the saying goes, "Every vessel only spills what it contains." And in this case, France’s repeated violations of its international commitments are no accident. 

Belgacem Merbah