The Minister of the Interior has demanded the expulsion of several foreigners on file for radicalization.

But this procedure is more complex than it seems as explained by Frédéric Encel, lecturer at Sciences Po Paris, invited Tuesday on Europe 1.

Why is the expulsion of radicalized foreigners difficult to implement?

The death of Samuel Paty, murdered by a son of Chechen refugees, unknown to the intelligence services, has revived the debate on the subject.

Frédéric Encel, lecturer at Sciences Po Paris and author of 

100 words of war

 published by PUF, explains on Europe 1 that the legal conditions, but also geopolitics must be met for this delicate operation to go well. 

Respect for the judicial framework

Because France cannot expel whoever it wants, nor as it wishes.

"We are a rule of law, a democracy. We do not expel someone for reasons other than very formally legal. Someone must have committed offenses or crimes," explains Frédéric Encel. 

>> Find Europe Soir with Isabelle Millet in replay and podcast here

The passage to the act is however not necessary: ​​it can be sufficient "that it is in the process of committing it, and that is something sometimes difficult to demonstrate", considers the geopolitologist.

"We can nevertheless try to drive out someone from the national territory who is not French."

The lecturer at Sciences Po Paris notably takes the example of the imam of Vénissieux in the 2000s. "He had not committed a crime but he called for behaviors which were clearly violent, criminal or criminal".

France cannot decide alone

It is then essential that everything be "implemented legally and judicially, in accordance with the laws, to apply these expulsions," he said.

Because France does not want, under international law, to create stateless persons.

Thus, "if the person does not have a host country or a foreign passport, it cannot be sent anywhere," says Frédéric Encel.

This therefore forces the French authorities to negotiate "sometimes secretly, sometimes very directly, with the states of origin of these people", as Gérald Darmanin was able to do.

But these negotiations can be difficult because "when dealing with people who are clearly seen as violent, potentially terrorists or as members of organizations banned in these countries", it can be difficult to obtain an expulsion agreement.

Taking the example of Morocco, Algeria or even Egypt, states such as the ex-Soviet Muslim republics or Senegal, the geopolitoloque details "that they do not want to import an Islamist and terrorist problem at home ".

No deportations to countries where they risk torture or death 

However, "objectively cooperation is good, and in particular since the 1990s because we are all fighting against the same scourge", considers Frédéric Encel.

This does not prevent negotiations from taking place.

"We can negotiate diplomatic support on a theme that has little to do with radical Islamism, at the UN General Assembly, at the Security Council. This can be played out on the commercial and economic level. because we have very large volumes of exchange with the Maghreb countries, "explains the lecturer at Sciences Po.

These agreements can also concern other targets and relate "to personalities from whom these countries would, on the contrary, wish to be extradited if they have committed offenses or crimes there".

There is a final difficulty, adds the specialist: "France, the rule of law, refrains from expelling nationals of countries in which they risk being tortured or executed".