Tag: Current Events

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”

In international criminal justice, which prioritizes the prosecution of fewer but more extreme crimes in countries often devastated by internal armed conflict and political breakdown, procedure’s demonstrative role in reestablishing the rule of law is particularly significant. Yet, regardless of the context, the sine qua non of criminal procedure is to make possible a fair adjudication of facts and principled determination of the guilt or innocence of accused persons. If procedure fails in that elemental task, it undermines not only ICL’s core aim of assigning individual criminal responsibility, but also its broader goals, such as promoting peace and stability in affected countries and regions.

Johnathan Hafetz, Punishing Atrocities Through a Fair Trial

I see more clearly than ever before that even our troubles spring from something that is admirable and sound as it is dangerous—from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows.

Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies 

In national criminal justice, which seeks to address the crimes of all offenders rather than the few most responsible, criminal procedure is equally the sine qua non for ensuring a fair adjudication of facts and determination of individual criminal responsibility. Procedural fairness enhances the acceptance of the results, which in turn enhances confidence in the rule of law, thus promoting peace and stability. Getting the procedure right is essential. But there are a host of challenges that must also be resolved before trials can be held. Hence why Karl Popper’s refrain on impatience despite good intentions should be heeded. Designing a comprehensive and holistic rule of law blueprint tailored to Syria should be at the top of the transitional justice list.

Syria may be free of the Bashar al-Assad regime, but it risks becoming another failed state like Libya – fragmented, chaotic, conflict-ridden, unstable, and unsafe. Toppling al-Assad (given the serendipity of circumstances) may prove to be easier than establishing and maintaining peace and freedom, pursuing justice and accountability, and forming a free, democratic, inclusive, tolerant, and independent Syria. The dramatic psychological lift brought about by the ousting of the al-Assad regime must be quickly built upon, so the perception of progress is not lost. Continue reading “SYRIA MUST FIRST ESTABLISH RULE OF LAW: Avoid expedient justice and accountability measures that produce expeditious but unreliable and insupportable results”