michaelgkarnavas.net/Blog

Featured

About Michael G. Karnavas

Michael G. Karnavas is an American trained lawyer. He is licensed in Alaska and Massachusetts and is qualified to appear before the various international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). Residing and practicing primarily in The Hague, he is recognized as an expert in international criminal defence, including, pre-trial, trial, and appellate advocacy. Click here to visit Michael’s web site.

Michael G. Karnavas lectures students at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies on the role of defence counsel:

Subscribe here to follow Michael’s Blog:

Featured

News and Events

On 29 June 2023, Michael G. Karnavas was a member of a panel on legal professional ethics before the international criminal tribunals, hosted in London by the International Committee of the Inner Temple.
On May 8 to May 9, 2023, Michael G. Karnavas taught at a Training of Trainers and Advocacy Training Program organized by International Bridges to Justice (IBJ) in Gaziantep, Turkey, for Syrian criminal defense lawyers living and working in northwest Syria, notably, in and around Aleppo.
On 9 and 10 January 2023, Michael G. Karnavas conducted a virtual training for Chinese lawyers, at the Defender Advocacy Workshop, hosted by the University of Tokyo, Research Center for Sustainable Peace. The topics of his presentations were: Building Rapport and Trust with Clients from Vulnerable Populations through the Initial Client Interview; and Skills in Cross-Cultural Representation.
On 7 November 2022, Michael G. Karnavas participated in a discussion on transitional justice in Myanmar, focusing his remarks on the legacy of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (“ECCC”) and the role of the defence in hybrid international(ized) criminal tribunals.
In July 2020, the Oxford University Press published Codes of Conduct for Counsel in International Criminal Proceedings, by Michael G. Karnavas, as part of the Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law. The volume provides a detailed overview of the codes of conduct at international criminal tribunals and the challenges counsel face in meeting their ethical and professional obligations.
Prof. Dr. h.c. Wolfgang Schomburg

Michael G. Karnavaswrote a chapter entitled The Serendipitous Nature of the ICC Trial Proceedings Risks the ICC’s Credibility (pp.: 202–247), in Justice Without Borders a collection of essays on international criminal law, European criminal law and international cooperation, honoring Judge Wolfgang Schomburg on the occasion of his 70th birthday on 9 April 2018.

Continue reading “News and Events”

Defence Counsel Training at the ICC: A disorganized, under-resourced, afterthought

On 8 July 2025, I received a group email from “ICC Seminars” with an invitation to “Counsel admitted to the Court’s List of Counsel and the Court’s List of Assistants to participate in the upcoming hybrid Training for Counsel. This training will be held both online and at the Court from Tuesday, 23 September to Thursday, 25 September 2025.” There is no limitation for on-line attendance. The email stated a draft agenda would be shared in due course, while the invitation attachment said a draft agenda was attached. It was not. The email also advised that a link would be available in “early September.” As far as I know, neither has occurred.

Although the invitation states the “training is organised in collaboration with the ICC Bar Association and with funding from the European Union,” I see nothing about the training on the ICCBA website training or home pages.

With the training about 2 weeks away, I thought I’d share the below email I sent back that same day.

Dear CSS,

With all due respect, it’s genuinely difficult to understand how counsel are expected to commit their time, money, and professional energy to a training program when no information is provided—none—about the actual content. Is it really too much to expect that, before announcing an annual training (especially one that fills on a first-come, first-served basis), there would at least be a confirmed agenda and committed trainers?

After more than two decades of operation, one would reasonably expect CSS to have mastered the basics of planning and communication. This isn’t merely a matter of logistics or scheduling; it’s about respecting the time, financial constraints, and professional obligations of the very individuals the system depends on. Surely, we can all agree that counsel don’t attend these trainings for the hotel breakfast—they come to learn, to improve, to engage. That requires substance. And unfortunately, substance has too often been in short supply.

Over the years, I’ve tried—gently and not so gently—to convey two realities: first, that a large portion of counsel on the list still lack essential trial and appellate skills; and second, that the CSS annual training, more often than not, offers style over substance. Yet every year, I find myself watching the same last-minute scramble, the same absence of serious preparation, and the same missed opportunity for meaningful capacity-building. It’s become almost ritualistic.

Now, I understand there may be a lack of in-house expertise—after all, to my knowledge, no one within CSS has direct international trial or appellate experience. Fair enough. But that’s hardly a fatal obstacle. The field is rich with experienced counsel who are willing—eager, even—to contribute. So the continued reluctance to engage that expertise, to tap into the available resources, remains baffling. A mystery, really.

Until that changes, I’ll continue to express my concern—not out of habit or complaint, but because I care about the integrity of the profession and the quality of representation provided in international proceedings. And, as always, I remain entirely willing to assist in raising the standard—should anyone at CSS wish to take up the offer.

Respectfully but disappoint[ed]ly ,

Michael G. Karnavas

No response was forthcoming.

Don't forget to leave your comments

When Critique Becomes Caricature: A Response to James Radcliffe

Having already clarified my original post — Sanctions as Stimulative Measures: A Sovereign Prerogative Untethered from Moral Discernment — and followed it with Deserve’s Got Nothing to Do with It: A Response to Critiques of My Views on U.S. Sanctions and the ICC, I had not intended to revisit the matter. These were rare indulgences, prompted by private messages from colleagues whose intellect I respect. But Mr. James Radcliffe, apparently of the University of New South Wales, has now contributed a comment so drenched in bile and devoid of reasoned argument that, regrettably, another response is necessary. Continue reading “When Critique Becomes Caricature: A Response to James Radcliffe”

THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events

But suppose the safety of the State is endangered; our foresight can not extend too far. Are we to delay averting our destruction until it has become inevitable?… If an unknown man takes aim at me in the middle of a forest I am not yet certain that he wishes to kill me; must I allow him time to fire in order to be sure of his intent? Is there any reasonable casuist who would deny me the right to forestall the act?… Must we await he danger? Must we let the storm gather strength when it might be scattered at its rising?

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758), 248-249

Resuming and Recontextualizing

The legal and strategic implications of Israel’s aerial offensive inside Iran – unprecedented in both scope and timing – are difficult to overstate. This was not retaliation. There was no missile barrage, no chemical warhead in the sky, no mass-casualty provocation. Ramadan had just ended. The region was diplomatically active, not ablaze. American, French, and Saudi officials were brokering normalization talks between Israel and Riyadh. The West wanted calm.

Netanyahu chose escalation.

Or did he?

The Pre-Emptive Strike in Self Defense Look closer, and the logic begins to snap into place – albeit under intense scrutiny and through a narrow legal aperture. There was no armed attack that might clearly trigger the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Israel acted not in response to violence, but to intelligence. This was anticipatory self-defense: a controversial exception to the general prohibition on the use of force. The legal test for self-defence– drawn from the 19th-century Caroline doctrine and later jurisprudence – demands that the necessity of self-defense be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Continue reading “THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events”

THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part I: Anticipatory Self-Defence in the Nuclear Age

Nothing under international law may justify these armed attacks and the deliberate targeting of protected civilians.

Saïd Benarbia, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme Director

I do not agree that the terms or intent of Article 51 eliminate the right of self-defence under customary international law…

Judge Schwebel, dissenting, ICJ Nicaragua case (1986)

Prolegomena

Israel’s June 2025 unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear program tests the boundaries of self-defence in a world the UN Charter wasn’t built to govern. For decades, Israeli policy has emphasized that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. The strikes fulfilled that doctrine. It followed years of diplomacy, sabotage, and shadow war. And it came after repeated warnings that Iran had crossed enrichment thresholds and could reach nuclear breakout within months. That moment, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued, demanded immediate action.

Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state. The only explicit exception is found in Article 51: the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.”

Israel has not claimed that Iran launched a missile or invaded its territory. Instead, it argues that a nuclear Iran would present an irreversible threat—one that could not be deterred, reversed, or neutralized once operational.

This raises a foundational question: What kind of threat justifies the use of force in self-defence before an actual armed attack? Or more sharply: Can international law afford to wait for the flash of a nuclear detonation before permitting a state to act? Continue reading “THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part I: Anticipatory Self-Defence in the Nuclear Age”

Deserve’s Got Nothin’ to Do with It — A response to critiques of my views on U.S. sanctions and the ICC

Advanced Vocabulary for English Language Learners: To get an earful Wow did I get an earful after my post on sanctions against the ICC! And in many cases it came from those I hold in the highest esteem. As expected, most of the criticism directed at my post was steeped more in emotion than in cold, fact-based logic or a sober assessment of geopolitical reality. That’s not a criticism in itself — emotion has its place, especially when discussing justice and law. But emotion, however righteous, cannot override structural power dynamics.

I genuinely commend those who, in Churchillian fashion, continue to defend the ICC, international criminal justice, judicial independence, and the integrity of the Prosecutor. I agree with those values. I said so in my previous post — if read without the haze of moral indignation and with a modicum of intellectual generosity. Perhaps I wasn’t explicit enough. Perhaps I was too restrained in my use of adjectives and adverbs. Perhaps I didn’t indulge in enough rhetorical fire to pass the purity test of those whose compass points only to the ideal. Perhaps. But I think not. Continue reading “Deserve’s Got Nothin’ to Do with It — A response to critiques of my views on U.S. sanctions and the ICC”

SANCTIONS AS STIMULATIVE MEASURES: a sovereign prerogative untethered from moral discernment

Little Bill Daggett: I don’t deserve this… to die like this. I was building a house.

Bill Munny: Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.

Little Bill Daggett: I’ll see you in hell, William Munny.

Bill Munny: Yeah.

Unforgiven (1992)[/otw_shortcode_quote]

It is what it is. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Bending another state or institution (such as the International Criminal Court (ICC)) to the will of a more powerful sanctioning state may be distasteful, distressing, disadvantageous (depending on the side of the cause for the sanctions one is aligned with) but the harsh reality is that the use of sanctions is a sovereign prerogative. The sooner this reality is accepted and embraced, the sooner the sanctioned state or institution, along with their cast of supporting states, international and regional organizations, civil society, concerned global citizens can accept the need to explore realizable off-ramps or condition themselves to endure the consequences of the sanctions.

Why it is what it is

Reality is harsh. Powerful and well-positioned states resort to sanctions when it suits their interests. Imposing them may leave a might makes right stench in the nostrils, but it is what it is. Getting emotional, crying foul, engaging in hyperbolic condemnations, calling out the hypocritical and inconsistent use of sanctions against foes for conduct and causes that the sanctioning state engages in or tolerates and even supports when friends and allies do likewise, is not a strategy. It is a reaction. Continue reading “SANCTIONS AS STIMULATIVE MEASURES: a sovereign prerogative untethered from moral discernment”

Workplace Harassment at the ICC Stubbornly Persistent — Part 2: willful blindness, callous indifference, blissful incompetence or institutional protectiveness?

Part 2

The Disciplinary Committee takes into consideration, however, that the investigations carried out were not sufficiently thorough, particularly with regard to the role played by Mr. Emmanuel Altit in the management methods that led to the inappropriate behavior denounced by the complainants … nevertheless noted the particular seriousness of the alleged offences, repeated over several years and resulting in deep-seated trauma from which some of the complainants are still suffering today, as evidenced by the tears and clear signs of suffering observed at the hearing.

The International Criminal Court’s award [fine] of costs is justified by the fact that Ms. Jennifer Naouri’s actions were reported by the plaintiffs to both the Registry and the CSS prior to the filing of the complaints, without the Court’s bodies having taken adequate measures (instructions, investigation, control, call to order) to stop or prevent them.

Disciplinary Committee Decision, Disciplinary proceedings against Ms Jennifer Naouri

Part 1 dealt with general context and why the Registry in no small measure is responsible for much of the persistent workplace harassment as it relates to the defence. Part 2 will focus on the Disciplinary Board’s (Board) findings against ICC Defence Counsel Jennifer Naouri. Without reading too much into the tea leaves and mainly relying on what was reported by the complainants/victims and now proven by the Board, as well as what I have heard and observed and surmised for nearly a decade, I will offer my take on why Naouri behaved as she did, and why others in like circumstances are susceptible to behaving likewise. My aim is neither to demean nor moralize. Rather, in examining the findings, I aim to see what lessons can be learned for improving workplace conditions for all members of defence teams. For this it will be necessary to examine how the Registry, Naouri, and all of us in the ICC List of Counsel might improve in providing the best possible representation to suspects and accused during pre-trial and trial and convicted persons on appeal.

Before turning to the Decision, it is important to consider three preliminary points and one key caveat. Continue reading “Workplace Harassment at the ICC Stubbornly Persistent — Part 2: willful blindness, callous indifference, blissful incompetence or institutional protectiveness? “

Workplace Harassment at the ICC Stubbornly Persistent — Part 1: willful blindness, callous indifference, blissful incompetence or institutional protectiveness?

The Disciplinary Committee also notes that all of them [complainants] report after-effects resulting from Ms. Jennifer Naouri’s behavior and management style: diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (Exhibit PL138), anxiety attacks, loss of confidence, feelings of fear and intense stress, burnout, taking medication, even suicidal thoughts.

Disciplinary proceedings against Ms Jennifer Naouri, Decision, p.6.

This made me most angry. Young women come to the ICC with great enthusiasm and dreams, and what happens? They are psychologically mutilated, harassed, they are told that they cannot understand the dossier and cannot analyse all the dangers, so they can only obey.

Catherine Mabille, ICC Disciplinary Commissioner, quoted in Justice Info

Prolegomena

The ICC is yet again at a crossroad. This time the Registry faces a self-inflicted conundrum. The recent Disciplinary Board decision against Defence Counsel Jennifer Naouri exposed numerous systemic weaknesses known to the Registry for years. Sadly, the Registry has been listless and lazy. When it opts to act, it’s too little, too late. And even then, it embraces opaqueness and obfuscation. Query: will the Registry take the path that fosters a workplace free of abusive behavior inflicted on subordinate staff across all organs and independent actors in the court, or will it continue down the path of business as usual.

Harsh but well-earned criticism. The Registry has been too lax and too indisposed to bother with providing the necessary training, upholding high standards, affording adequate remuneration for qualified personnel, and monitoring the working conditions of the Defence. If there is an existing standard, it is one of marginal competence, marginal remuneration, marginal resources, marginal training, and marginal workplace oversight. Quality of representation, quality of competence, quality of skill level, quality of training, quality of the working environment has been of little concern to the Registry. Some have suggested that this is purposeful to give the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) a winning chance. Cynical as it sounds, subliminally, such intentions may be a factor when considering the OTP’s modest successes in the trial and appeal trenches. Continue reading “Workplace Harassment at the ICC Stubbornly Persistent — Part 1: willful blindness, callous indifference, blissful incompetence or institutional protectiveness? “

ALLEGATIONS OF SERIAL SEXUAL ASSAULT REVEALED: ICC Prosecutor Khan should step aside while the investigation is pending

He always holds on to me and leads me to the bed. It’s the feeling of being trapped. People have told me to stand up against this man, yet everyone, including elected officials, seem to be very scared of him and says there is nothing we can do [about making him step aside] because he refuses.

Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan’s accuser, as quoted in the WSJ

In my last post, I warned of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) self-inflicted quandary: being at a credibility and sustainability crossroads. I referred to two imminent tests. The first test dealt with jurisdiction in the Rodrigo Duterte case. With some Judges/Chambers indulging enthusiastically in creative judicial activism on jurisdictional issues in general, I warned that reversing course will take judicial courage and restraint. Both are in short supply if past is prologue. The second test dealt with the Khan affair.

For months it had been reported that ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan was accused by his female assistant of sexual harassment, and that with the help of others, he obstructed the investigation by intimidating witnesses or pressuring them to recant. I warned against dragging out the investigation or sweeping the matter under the proverbial rug. When I posted, Khan had yet to be interviewed. Optically, the process seemed as quick as a snail and as transparent as my grandmother’s thick velvety-green pea soup. Then last week it was reported in the conservative but respected US newspaper, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), that Khan had finally been interviewed. The article is a bombshell. What was initially reported as alleged sexual harassment is much more serious. As reported in the WSJ, the lurid details of what the accuser is claimed to have stated when interviewed as part of the investigative process into her allegations, amount to Khan sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions in multiple locations, including in the residence of Khan’s wife in The Hague, where Khan resides.

Presumption of innocence and due process aside, has the time come for Khan to take a leave of absence from his position at the ICC while this sordid saga runs its procedural course? I think so; probably long overdue. Continue reading “ALLEGATIONS OF SERIAL SEXUAL ASSAULT REVEALED: ICC Prosecutor Khan should step aside while the investigation is pending”

THE ICC’s SELF-INFLICTED QUANDARY: stick to the terms of the treaty, avoid judicial activism and jurisdictional overreach, and reign in hubristic impulses, or wither from abandonment, irrelevancy and disrepute

Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.

John Locke

The last couple of weeks have been particularly disquieting for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Prime Minister of Hungary, Victor Orbán, not only hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who is subject to an ICC arrest warrant) but also announced his intent to withdraw Hungary from the ICC. Then came the news that Belgium would not comply with its ICC obligation to arrest Netanyahu were he to visit. And then came the Reuters news “exclusive” on the ongoing investigation of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC for sexual harassment, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses. Old news, but if any of the reported damning details are proven, Mr. Khan will have disgraced himself and the Office of the Prosecution (OTP). More on this below. Continue reading “THE ICC’s SELF-INFLICTED QUANDARY: stick to the terms of the treaty, avoid judicial activism and jurisdictional overreach, and reign in hubristic impulses, or wither from abandonment, irrelevancy and disrepute”