Author: Michael G. Karnavas

The essence of the rule of law is that it should place restraints on power.

– Lord Bingham

The public reaction in the Philippines and beyond to Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa’s apparent evasion of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant has been intense, emotional, and, in many quarters, openly condemnatory. For some, it is evidence that powerful individuals continue to enjoy privileges unavailable to ordinary citizens: an attempted escape from accountability unfolding in real time. For others, it is yet another example of impunity shielding political elites from consequences that would otherwise be swiftly imposed.

The anger is understandable. Many victims, activists, and observers view Dela Rosa not merely as a political figure but as a principal architect of the Duterte administration’s anti-drug campaign – a campaign alleged to have killed thousands and shattered countless families. From that perspective, jurisdictional objections can seem less like legal arguments than like procedural obstruction.

But that framing risks a deeper analytical error: it collapses distinct legal questions into a single moral narrative. The structure of available legal outcomes is not binary – ICC prosecution or no accountability.

Continue reading “THE DELA ROSA AFFAIR: Jurisdiction, Accountability, and the False Choice between the ICC and Impunity”

Occasionally, I get facts wrong. When that happens, I have no difficulty acknowledging error.

In my earlier post, relying on the biographical details listed by Temple Garden Chambers, I stated that Judge Abdul Koroma was no longer serving as a judge of the International Court of Justice. As Professor Heller was quick – and no doubt delighted – to point out, Judge Koroma presently sits at the ICJ in an ad hoc judicial capacity.

On that point, I was, like Middle East Eye in breaking the story, mistaken. Mea culpa. And sincerely so. Continue reading “CORRECTION NOT RETRACTION: If Anything, This Makes It Worse”

Any attempt to re-open litigation of the matter would undermine the integrity of the Institution and the rule of law.

– Abdul Koroma

So declares former International Court of Justice judge Abdul Koroma, according to the Middle East Eye (MEE), in a seven-page “opinion” (as characterized) concerning the disciplinary proceedings involving the embattled and currently leave-bound ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC.

At this stage, L’Affaire Khan resembles less a serious disciplinary process than a carefully managed media campaign wrapped in legal jargon, institutional symbolism, and selectively deployed prestige. The latest installment is particularly remarkable – even faintly farcical.

Based on MEE’s reporting, which claims to have reviewed the “Koroma Opinion,” Khan – who in recent weeks has embarked on what has been described as an “exoneration media tour” – now appears to be indirectly leveraging the stature of a former ICJ judge to exert pressure not merely on the Bureau but effectively on the Assembly of States Parties (“ASP”).

Is the timing entirely coincidental? Continue reading “WEAPONIZING JUDICIAL PRESTIGE: The Curious Timing of the “Koroma Opinion””

The interpretation of the Rome Statute is governed by the provisions of articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The relevant provisions must be interpreted systematically, taking into account the object and purpose of the Statute, which is to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes. (para. 1, underlined added)

Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte against Pre-Trial Chamber’s “Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction on the Courts” of 23 October 2025

Legal texts, much like religious ones, rarely yield a single intelligible meaning. They invite interpretation; they sustain it. In doing so, they inevitably reflect not only the words on the page but also the institutional instincts, interpretive philosophy, and normative priorities of those tasked with applying them.

The Rome Statute is no exception. Perspective matters. Purpose matters. And institutional orientation – especially in a court expressly created to confront atrocity crimes – matters profoundly.

When adjudication is guided by a strong commitment to the Statute’s anti-impunity mandate, the interpretive method can shift subtly yet decisively. Textual ambiguities no longer appear as limits; they begin to resemble obstacles. Procedural distinctions no longer function as safeguards; they begin to appear as technicalities that can frustrate the Statute’s overarching purpose. Continue reading “THE DUTERTE JURISDICTIONAL JUDGMENT: Foreboding Questions for the ICC’s Jurisdictional Future  “

These are serious, but not desperate times. The law sees people that some want to erase. So the question is not whether the ICC is perfect, but whether the world can be better with it.

– Karim A. A. Khan KC

The longer L’Affaire Khan continues, the clearer it becomes that the issue before the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) is no longer confined to the underlying allegations against Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC. The controversy has evolved into something far broader: a test of institutional legitimacy, constitutional competence, and the ICC’s capacity to confront allegations against one of its senior officials with coherence, credibility, and public confidence.

Whatever one ultimately believes about the allegations themselves, the Rome Statute framework was designed to ensure that controversies of this magnitude would not be resolved through managerial discretion, improvised procedural innovation, or the temporary political composition of a subsidiary organ. They were meant to be addressed by the Assembly of States Parties (“ASP”) acting in its plenary constitutional capacity. Continue reading “L’AFFAIRE KHAN: Why the ASP – Not the Bureau – Must Decide”

A half-truth is often a great lie.

– Benjamin Franklin

Just when I thought there was nothing more to say about L’Affaire Khan it appears there is one more point worth making.

I could, of course, spend time examining the decision by the now-on-leave Prosecutor, Karim A. A. Khan KC, to grant an interview to media personality Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo while disciplinary proceedings remain ongoing – an unusual choice for someone ostensibly committed to allowing the process to run its course. One might reasonably ask whether such engagement is intended simply to explain or whether it risks exerting more subtle pressure on the Assembly of States Parties: to accept a particular framing of the process or risk later criticism framed in the language of institutional failure for violating the rule of law. But I won’t. Continue reading “THE EXONERATION EXPRESS: All Show, No Substance”

The most dangerous myths are often the ones people mistake for common sense.

Why This Question Matters

In my last post, I wrote about an uncomfortable institutional question: whether power itself can begin to shape the conditions under which accountability is supposed to occur within the International Criminal Court (ICC). This post turns to a second question, no less consequential: whether assumptions can begin to shape judgment before accountability is formally tested.

Even where a disciplinary mechanism is formally allowed to proceed and no overt interference can yet be shown, allegations of sexual misconduct involving senior officials can still be distorted by something far more ordinary than politics. They can be distorted by assumption. Not a legal assumption, but a human one. Continue reading “THERE IS NO “NORMAL” VICTIM: Why Sexual Misconduct Complaints Cannot Be Judged by Stereotype”

It’s not just the abuse of power that’s the problem. It’s the power to abuse.

–Stefan Molyneux

When an Institution Must Judge Itself

Institutions created to judge power are often least prepared to confront it when it resides within their own walls.

That is the paradox now confronting the International Criminal Court (ICC). An institution established to challenge impunity abroad is now forced to confront a more uncomfortable possibility at home: whether power, once lodged within the institution, can begin to shape the terms of accountability from within. At moments like this, the central question is no longer only whether misconduct occurred. It is whether an institution founded on law can preserve confidence in its own processes when authority itself becomes part of the equation.

At international institutions, power rarely disappears when allegations of sexual misconduct arise. More often, it simply changes form. Continue reading “WHEN POWER PROTECTS ITSELF: Sexual Misconduct Allegations, Institutional Influence, and the ICC’s Hardest Test”