michaelgkarnavas.net/Blog

REBUILDING ETHOS: Know How Judges Form Credibility Assessments in Real Time (Part III of the Effective Advocacy Trilogy)

You pursued a man only insofar as you can talk his language, by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his.

Kenneth Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives, p. 53.

In Part I, I framed ethos as the foundation of persuasive advocacy — credibility established in real time. In Part II, I examined how it deteriorates: not through scandal, but through accumulation — overstatement, shading of the record, tonal slips, evasiveness, and small habits that quietly reshape how you are perceived.

Now comes the difficult question: once trust is strained, can it be restored?

WHY HOME MAINTENANCE IS IMPORTANT Mservo While it can happen, it can’t be achieved through superficial fixes or mere pretense. Credibility doesn’t increase simply because we desire it to; judges are aware of what has occurred. Restoring trust requires a more solid foundation: acknowledging mistakes when necessary, exercising restraint when tempted, and maintaining consistent discipline over time. It involves behavior that shows reliability before seeking renewed confidence. Restoration is about actions, not words. Continue reading “REBUILDING ETHOS: Know How Judges Form Credibility Assessments in Real Time (Part III of the Effective Advocacy Trilogy)”

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”

HOW ADVOCATES LOSE ETHOS: A Gradual Erosion (Part II of the Effective Advocacy Trilogy)

[E]thos counts more than any other aspect of rhetoric because it puts your audience in the ideal state of persuadability. Cicero said you want them to be attentive, trusting, and willing to be persuaded. They’re more likely to be interested if they find you worth their attention. The trusting part goes with the ethical territory of cuse, craft, and caring. As for their willingness to be persuaded, you want them to consider you a role model-the essence of leadership. And where does this attitude come from? The same perceived traits: cause, craft, caring.

Jay Henrichs, Thank You for Arguing, p. 79

In my previous post, I explored ethos as the core of persuasive advocacy—credibility demonstrated through action. I emphasized that ethos is not your résumé. It is not seniority. It is not even reputation in the abstract. It is trust built in real time: sentence by sentence, answer by answer, concession by concession. It is the quiet but decisive assessment judges form about whether you are reliable.

And here is the uncomfortable truth: most advocates do not lose their ethos through dramatic misconduct. They lose it quietly. Gradually. Often without realizing it.

Saving Face vs Losing Face: Important Etiquette in Asia Few advocates start their day intending to deceive the judges. Most are intelligent, conscientious, and genuinely dedicated to their clients and the pursuit of justice. However, credibility is rarely destroyed by major ethical violations. Instead, it is often damaged by small habits, subconscious impulses, and misguided strategic instincts—patterns that seem harmless on their own but become harmful over time. For example: adding an adjective for emphasis, framing a fact too strongly, citing an authority without full context, resisting a concession longer than necessary, or answering a question defensively instead of directly.

None of these, when considered alone, seems dreadful. But judges do not evaluate advocates in isolated moments. They assess patterns. They listen for proportionality. They observe tone. They note whether an advocate appears genuinely committed to helping them or just trying to win a debate, to score a point, or to pull a fast one over them. Continue reading “HOW ADVOCATES LOSE ETHOS: A Gradual Erosion (Part II of the Effective Advocacy Trilogy)”

Effective Advocacy Trilogy: Ethos as Foundation, Erosion, and Restoration

Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible.

Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric

In my last two posts (here and here), I offered some foundational advice for appellate moot court participants—primarily those engaged in international law competitions. The focus there was on structure, clarity, responsiveness to the chamber, and the disciplined use of authority. Although framed in the context of moots, much of that guidance applies far beyond competition settings. Advocacy skills, after all, travel well—across jurisdictions, legal traditions, and levels of experience.

But appellate mooting is just one area. There are also trial moot court competitions that, like real trial advocacy, require a different mindset and skillset. They demand mastery not only of argument but also of examination, evidentiary judgment, narrative control, courtroom presence, and quick responsiveness. They call for agility in responding to witnesses, sensitivity to judicial intervention, and the ability to think strategically on the spot. These skills are not just for competition; they are transferable abilities that shape real-world litigation—whether in party-driven adversarial systems or judge-led civil law traditions.

Beyond competitions, I regularly engage in trial advocacy training—particularly in international and hybrid criminal courts and tribunals. I also lead training sessions in national jurisdictions, mainly for defense attorneys, and occasionally, I am consulted by both new and somewhat experienced advocates seeking advice on courtroom strategy, preparation, and persuasion. Through over forty years of practice and reflection, I’ve realized that although techniques evolve and procedural rules differ, certain core principles remain constant.

From time to time, I will share reflections based on experience—lessons learned in courtrooms, training rooms, and through observing what persuades and what does not. These reflections are offered humbly, not as strict formulas, but as practical guidance for those looking to improve their craft—whether prosecutors, defense attorneys, victim advocates, or aspiring advocates still finding their voice.

With that in mind, I believe every advocate should begin with one of Aristotle’s three powerful rhetorical tools of persuasion: ethos. Continue reading “Effective Advocacy Trilogy: Ethos as Foundation, Erosion, and Restoration”

Fundamentals of Appellate Advocacy for Moot Court Participants Part II: Preparing for Moot Court Oral Advocacy

Don’t prepare to fail. Prepare only to win.

— Mehdi Hasan

In Part I, we explored how careful, disciplined drafting transforms a brief into a tool judges can actually use—how clarity, precision, ethical rigor, and structural logic make written advocacy credible and actionable. The same principles carry forward into oral argument. Persuasive appellate advocacy relies not on clever phrasing or theatrical delivery, but on clear thinking, preparation, and the ability to guide a decision-maker through complexity with confidence, restraint, and discipline.

The History of Oral Argument | Supreme Court Historical Society Since persuasive oral advocacy depends on storytelling and the capacity to communicate with ease and clarity, I often start my advice to moot court participants and young lawyers with a familiar exercise: imagining a conversation with a stranger over drinks at a bar. This simple scenario tests an advocate’s understanding of the facts, the law, the issues, and the procedural context. More importantly, it challenges them to explain those elements clearly, succinctly, and persuasively to someone unfamiliar with the case, showing why each point matters. If your arguments can be understood—and appreciated—by a stranger, you are well on the path to guiding a bench.In this way, the exercise is both a mirror and a bridge: it reflects your mastery of the written brief developed in Part I while helping you turn that work into compelling oral advocacy. Continue reading “Fundamentals of Appellate Advocacy for Moot Court Participants Part II: Preparing for Moot Court Oral Advocacy”

Fundamentals of Appellate Advocacy for Moot Court Participants — Part I: From Drafting Briefs to Courtroom Performance

Every year around this time, I hear from law students involved in moot court competitions seeking guidance. Some want help improving their briefs; others seek advice on oral argument. Last year, I was even invited to give a presentation on oral advocacy for an arbitration moot—an experience I found unexpectedly enjoyable. It took me back more than four decades, to my own days participating in an international moot court competition, long before the internet, Google, YouTube, or any of the digital resources students rely on today.

That sense of distance was enlightening. It reminded me of the challenges my partner and I faced throughout the competition, including in the final round—where we placed second overall after winning first prize for our written submission. It also led me to reflect on what has changed and what has not. Over the years, I have had the privilege of teaching law students and training practicing lawyers in trial and appellate advocacy. What experience has shown me is this: while the fundamentals of advocacy remain constant, effective persuasion requires attentiveness to the times and, above all, to the audience—the decision-makers themselves. Continue reading “Fundamentals of Appellate Advocacy for Moot Court Participants — Part I: From Drafting Briefs to Courtroom Performance”

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”