International Criminal Law Archives - michaelgkarnavas.net/Blog

Logos in Action: Building Persuasive Legal Reasoning

Persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proven a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive argument suitable to the case in question.

—Aristotle

Introduction

In an earlier post (here), I distinguished between dialectic and rhetoric: the former as a method for testing propositions in pursuit of truth, the latter as a craft aimed at persuading others of what is most likely true. Dialectic, in the Socratic tradition, interrogates assumptions; rhetoric operates under conditions of uncertainty, where conclusions must be argued rather than discovered. For the advocate, the task is not to establish truth in the abstract, but to construct reasoning; logos that compels belief within a contested space.

In practice, logos is not reducible to formal logic or abstract syllogism. It is reasoning shaped for decision-making under constraint. Courts do not ask whether an argument is philosophically airtight; they ask whether it satisfies a burden of proof, coheres with the evidentiary record, and fits within an accepted legal framework. The advocate therefore operates in the space between logical validity and persuasive sufficiency: selecting, structuring, and presenting arguments that are not only internally sound but compelling to a particular audience. Logos, in this sense, is disciplined reasoning in context, anchored in the record, calibrated to legal standards, and directed toward judgment rather than abstract truth. Continue reading “Logos in Action: Building Persuasive Legal Reasoning”

INSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AND INVESTIGATIVE FAILURE: Confronting Sexual Misconduct at the Highest Levels

At the heart of this process lies a fundamental procedural mismatch. According to public reporting, the OIOS was mandated to conduct fact-finding, not adjudication. The ad hoc Judicial Panel was tasked with legally characterising OIOS’ findings, but had no authority to address their deficiencies considering the seriousness of this matter, including the failure to assess witness credibility or resolve material narrative inconsistencies.

Association of International Criminal Law Prosecutors (AICLP)

No, I am not suggesting that there is an ongoing cover-up in L’Affaire Khan, nor that there is institutional indifference at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Nor am I attributing the process for handling allegations of sexual assault, witness interference, and retaliatory conduct attributed to ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC to incompetence on the part of the Bureau (all laid out in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) and the Staff Regulations, save for the standard of proof issue). Continue reading “INSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AND INVESTIGATIVE FAILURE: Confronting Sexual Misconduct at the Highest Levels”

THE NON-EXONERATION EXONERATION: When Process Produces Ambiguity by Design

No matter how one slices it or dices it, shakes it or stirs it, fries it or bakes it, two points emerge—and they are not seriously contestable—from what has thus far been leaked to the press regarding the findings of the “experts” (or “judges”) tasked with examining the allegations against ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan, KC:

(a) This is not an exoneration

Let’s dispense with the headline spin. Continue reading “THE NON-EXONERATION EXONERATION: When Process Produces Ambiguity by Design”

THE ICC’S GLASS HOUSE: A Cassandra Warning in L’Affaire Khan

Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.

— Lord Hewart

When the world’s criminal court faces allegations against its own leaders, the issue is no longer just personal. It becomes a test of whether the institution upholds the accountability it expects from others.

Courts are built on trust. Brick by brick, decision by decision, they build reputations that may take decades to earn and only moments to destroy. When the world’s permanent international criminal court—the institution responsible for prosecuting the most serious crimes known to humanity—finds itself facing allegations against its own chief prosecutor, the issue is no longer just personal. It becomes institutional.

And institutions, unlike individuals, cannot afford the luxury of ambiguity.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) now faces a critical moment. What started as allegations involving its Prosecutor, has quietly grown into something bigger: a test of whether the ICC truly believes in the principles it was established to uphold. Continue reading “THE ICC’S GLASS HOUSE: A Cassandra Warning in L’Affaire Khan”

DEBUNKING ILLUSIONS: What ICC Delay Tells Us About Power, Politics, and Prosecutorial Choice — Part II of INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE WITHOUT ILLUSIONS

This is Part II of my series: INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE WITHOUT ILLUSIONS: A Realist’s View on the ICC’s Limitations.

Read Part I here.

Part II

Instead of lamenting that the United States might prosecute Nicolás Maduro before the International Criminal Court (ICC) ever does, a more honest—and more uncomfortable—question should be asked: why did an institution created to confront mass atrocities fail to act with urgency when it mattered most?

Much of the commentary on Maduro’s potential prosecution relies on the idea that international justice follows a single moral timeline, with the ICC as its natural pinnacle. From this view, some see national proceedings as nothing more than distractions at best, or hurdles at worst. This perspective is not only legally flawed; it is also institutionally evasive. It shifts focus away from the ICC’s own history of delays, selectivity, and strategic hesitation, and instead blames others for inaction. Continue reading “DEBUNKING ILLUSIONS: What ICC Delay Tells Us About Power, Politics, and Prosecutorial Choice — Part II of INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE WITHOUT ILLUSIONS”

JUSTICE DELAYED, JUSTICE MYTHOLOGIZED: Maduro, the ICC, and the Perils of Justice Without Power — Part I of INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE WITHOUT ILLUSIONS

INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE WITHOUT ILLUSIONS: A Realist’s View on the ICC’s Limitations

International criminal justice navigates a delicate balance between aspiration and authority. It invokes the language of universality but functions within a realm shaped by power, sovereignty, and uneven enforcement. This tension is most evident in discussions about the ICC, national prosecutions, and claims that domestic actions “undermine” or “obstruct” international justice.

Starting with the arrest of Nicolás Maduro and the possibility of an ICC sealed arrest warrant, I examine a straightforward yet frequently challenged concept: international criminal law is intertwined with geopolitics rather than existing above it. The ICC was never designed to control power, supersede sovereign jurisdictions, or hold complete accountability. Its authority depends on conditions, its enforcement varies, and its impact is influenced as much by political factors as by legal rules.

Rather than mourning these limitations, I advocate for honest confrontation. This approach does not undermine international justice; it enhances it. The real question is not whether the ICC is important, but what it can practically accomplish, when, and at what expense. Only by discarding comforting illusions can international criminal law establish itself as a credible and lasting endeavor.

This two-part series deliberately transitions from doctrine to delay, then to power, offering a realist perspective on what international criminal justice can—and cannot—accomplish in a world governed by sovereignty and strategic interests. My main argument is that international justice doesn’t fail because national jurisdictions act; it fails when symbolic aspiration is mistaken for real enforcement capabilities. Uneven accountability reflects uneven power, but this does not undermine international law; instead, it grounds it in reality. Naturally, these issues are complex and merit detailed, nuanced analysis, which this brief series cannot provide. Hopefully, however, it encourages discussion on what international criminal law, international criminal tribunals, especially the ICC, can realistically achieve. Continue reading “JUSTICE DELAYED, JUSTICE MYTHOLOGIZED: Maduro, the ICC, and the Perils of Justice Without Power — Part I of INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE WITHOUT ILLUSIONS”

Part II — THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE UNENFORCEABLE: Points 2–21/26 & the Fantasy of Amnesty in the Putin-Trump “Peace Plan”

The International Criminal Court Statute is explicit on certain challenges to accountability such as superior orders, head of state immunity, and statute of limitations, but is silent both as to any duty to prosecute and with regard to amnesties. Although the issue was raised during the Rome Conference at which the Statute was adopted, no clear consensus developed among the delegates as to how the question should be resolved. This too suggests that customary international law had not crystallized on this point, at least not in 1998. —

Leila Nadya Sadat, Exile, Amnesty and International Law, 81 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 955, 1022 (2006)

My initial reaction to Trump’s 28-point “peace plan,” created (or adopted, see Part I) by his inexperienced negotiation team, was not outrage or surprise but disbelief. I was genuinely astonished that four lawyers could produce (or claim ownership of) a document so legally incoherent, so fatally flawed, so flabbergasting, that it fails the laughing test. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are not just real estate magnates; they are lawyers in one of the most contract-heavy industries globally. Surely they understand the basics of their contractual arrangements: words matter, ambiguity is dangerous, contradictions are disastrous, and legal terms must be enforceable. When they step outside their expertise, they know to get advice from someone who isn’t. This isn’t advanced public international law; it’s basic ethics and professional responsibility. Continue reading “Part II — THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE UNENFORCEABLE: Points 2–21/26 & the Fantasy of Amnesty in the Putin-Trump “Peace Plan” “

The Putin–Trump 28-Point “Peace Plan”: Part 1 – Appeasement by Another Name

In the days of our sorrow when others, more powerful, have decided to beggar our ancient country… It is not we who should be ashamed.

— Josef Hora

When the 28-point Putin–Trump “peace plan” surfaced, most of the world reacted with disbelief. Ukraine was given six days to accept it — an ultimatum masquerading as diplomacy. As reporting accumulated, a clearer picture emerged: the document appears to have been drafted by Putin’s envoy, translated into English, and delivered to Trump’s negotiating team, which adopted and repackaged it as its own. From there, it was presented to President Zelensky as the official U.S. framework for ending the war.

If Michael D. Weiss’s account in his Bulwark interview proves accurate, the 28 points were hammered out by Kirill Alexandrovich Dmitriev — one of Putin’s close associates—together with two real-estate developers, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The draft, written first in Russian and then translated, was passed back to the Kremlin and returned to Witkoff, who has reportedly been advising the Russians on how Putin should “handle” Trump, to be presented to the Ukrainians as a U.S. peace proposal. Continue reading “The Putin–Trump 28-Point “Peace Plan”: Part 1 – Appeasement by Another Name”

KHAN PART 2 — WHAT TO MAKE OF THE QATAR-LINKED “SPY-GATE” THAT TARGETED THE COMPLAINANT? Has the Time Come for ICC Prosecutor Khan to Resign or Be Eased Out?

The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it.

Robert H. Schuler

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor, Karim A. A. Khan KC, should take the honorable step of resigning – posthaste.

There is no way to soften the truth or the distastefulness of the situation. What the public now sees resembles the unraveling of a spy novel—competing narratives of misinformation and disinformation, suggestions of double agents, questionable witnesses, whispered talk of a honeytrap, and more. Some of this may be accurate; much of it likely not. But that is beside the point. The collateral damage already inflicted upon the ICC is unmistakable. A court that aspires to serve as the court of last resort now risks appearing as a parody of its own ideals.

The allegations against Khan, however they ultimately resolve, have already compromised his stature. Accusations of sexual assault or rape almost inevitably inflict enduring reputational injury, even if exoneration follows. Yet this is only part of the problem. The latest revelations concerning efforts to target or discredit the complainant – even without any evidence that Khan was directly or indirectly involved, whether personally or through intermediaries – cast an even deeper shadow over the institution, particularly over the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). Taken together, the Khan affair and the reported behind-the-scenes maneuvers aimed at pressuring or undermining the complainant constitute not merely an unfortunate distraction but a profound blow to the integrity, professionalism, and credibility expected of the Court’s chief prosecutor. Continue reading “KHAN PART 2 — WHAT TO MAKE OF THE QATAR-LINKED “SPY-GATE” THAT TARGETED THE COMPLAINANT? Has the Time Come for ICC Prosecutor Khan to Resign or Be Eased Out?”

KHAN PART 1 — WHEN OPACITY FRAMES PERCEPTIONS: Is the Karim Khan affair investigation being slow-walked to deep-six the results?

“… many accounts of bullying behaviour amounting to harassment in all Organs of the Court though particularly the OTP … complaints that the culture of the Court’s workplace was adversarial and implicitly discriminatory against women. … a number of accounts of sexual harassment, notably uninvited and unwanted sexual advances from more senior male staff to their female subordinates.”(para. 209.)

Independent Expert Review

Throughout its history, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has struggled with workplace harassment – not as an occasional lapse, but as a recurring, deeply rooted institutional problem. The issue is neither marginal nor conjectural. As the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) commissioned Independent Expert Review (discussed here), concluded in its 30 September 2020 Final Report, harassment – sexual and otherwise – was pervasive across the ICC and, within the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), virtually systemic. That the OTP emerged as the “gold medalist” in this ignominious category surprised few insiders at the time.

Yes, reforms have been undertaken, and yes, some progress has been made. But when a culture of harassment becomes embedded – tolerated, normalized, and allowed to proliferate – optimism must be tempered by realism. Eradicating a deep-rooted institutional malaise requires far more than rewritten policies or aspirational memos. It demands vigilance, transparency, and a willingness to confront misconduct at every level, including the highest.

This brings us to the present and the allegations against Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC (discussed here). To be clear, these are allegations; nothing has been proven. However, they include conduct that, in some national jurisdictions, could be classified as sexual assault or even rape. The possible permutations are limited: the encounter was consensual; it started consensually but became non-consensual; or it never happened and was fabricated. There are also claims of attempts to improperly influence the complainant and witnesses – conduct that, if true, could have Article 70 implications. Continue reading “KHAN PART 1 — WHEN OPACITY FRAMES PERCEPTIONS: Is the Karim Khan affair investigation being slow-walked to deep-six the results?”