Tag: Current Events

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”  “

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”

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”

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?

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”

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”

To understand genocide as a class of calculated crimes, such crimes must be appreciated as goal-oriented acts from the point of view of perpetrators: genocide is rationally instrumental in their ends.

Helen Fein, Accounting For Genocide: National Responses and Jewish Victimization During the Holocaust (p.8)

Unfathomable that US President Donald J. Trump – surrounded by well-educated, well-informed, well-positioned Jewish advisors and insiders in his administration such as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, nominee Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and son-in-law / advisor Jared Kushner, to name but a few – would be ignorant of the historical parallels between his policy goals for the Palestinians and Nazi Germany’s infamous Madagascar Plan for the Jews. Continue reading “The Trump-Netanyahu Madagascar Plan: exhorting ethnic cleansing with slow-burning genocidal consequences for the Gazan (and conceivably West Bank) Palestinians”