Having already clarified my original post \u2014 Sanctions as Stimulative Measures: A Sovereign Prerogative Untethered from Moral Discernment<\/em><\/a> \u2014 and followed it with Deserve\u2019s Got Nothing to Do with It: A Response to Critiques of My Views on U.S. Sanctions and the ICC<\/em><\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n For the record, here is Mr. Radcliffe\u2019s contribution \u2014 unaltered, and as revealing as it is incoherent:<\/p>\n The length and pomp of this post can\u2019t hide the sheer absence of moral fortitude and the abundance of convenience on the author\u2019s side. Of course he\u2019d propose that the only way to \u201cprotect\u201d the ICC from Trump\u2019s gratuitous sanctions is to deprive victims of genocide from justice. Of course he\u2019d forget the efforts made by the UNSC and the EU Council over the years to guarantee that sanctions comply with basic human rights guarantees. The exact same guarantees, mind you, he\u2019d heatedly mention in the courtroom on behalf of literal g\u00e9nocidaires to portray himself as the sole guardian of due process of law. Well, the Emperor has no clothes, Michael. You\u2019re just another pretentious prick who\u2019s always more comfortable punching downward. Just like all your clients. Pathetic.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n I\u2019ll refrain from addressing the adolescent tone \u2014 it speaks loudly enough for itself. In another century, I might have been tempted to issue a gentleman’s challenge to a duel; today, I\u2019ll settle for the pen.<\/p>\n Mr. Radcliffe\u2019s broadside is not an argument. It\u2019s a tantrum masquerading as a critique. His approach \u2014 saturated with moral exhibitionism, yet strangely allergic to legal reasoning \u2014 demonstrates not only a poor grasp of the post he claims to critique, but a more profound discomfort with the foundational principles of legal process.<\/p>\n Let me restate what I assumed was already clear: I do not<\/em><\/strong> support the majority of U.S. President Trump\u2019s policies, foreign or domestic. But my argument was not an endorsement of Trump, nor an apologia for sanctions. It was \u2014 and remains \u2014 a sober analysis of the ICC\u2019s structural vulnerabilities, the reality of international power asymmetries, and the tactical space within which the Court must operate to survive. If that analysis offends Mr. Radcliffe\u2019s sensibilities, he is free to disagree \u2014 but he is not free to misrepresent my position to better perform his outrage.<\/p>\n On the ICC: I have praised it where praise is due, and criticized it where criticism is warranted. That is what serious observers do. Mr. Radcliffe may prefer blind allegiance to institutional virtue, but I decline to conflate complexity with betrayal.<\/p>\n His remarks about defence counsel \u2014 and by extension, my work \u2014 betray a fundamental hostility to one of the most basic tenets of international criminal justice: the right of every accused person, no matter how heinous the charge, to competent, zealous legal representation. I do not represent causes; I represent clients. I do not \u201cpunch down.\u201d I uphold the rights of individuals in a system that only functions if those rights are universally guaranteed, even for those Mr. Radcliffe finds morally abhorrent. That is not moral weakness. That is the rule of law in action.<\/p>\n And as for his casual reference to the \u201cefforts\u201d of the UN Security Council and the EU to ensure human rights\u2013compliant sanctions, one wonders which parallel universe he occupies. The UNSC\u2019s record on ICC cooperation is not merely poor; it is structurally absent. That is not a matter of opinion, but of documented fact. If Mr. Radcliffe intends to continue opining publicly on these matters, I would recommend a modest acquaintance with the relevant history.<\/p>\n Disagreement is valuable. It clarifies ideas, tests assumptions, and refines strategies. That is why every one of my posts ends with an invitation to comment.\u00a0 Pro, con or neutral, I treasure them all.\u00a0 I only ask civilized, respectful debate.\u00a0 However, disagreement grounded in ignorance and launched with venom is something else entirely. It serves neither justice nor intellect. Mr. Radcliffe\u2019s comment may have been meant to wound. It still only ends up revealing his discomfort with complexity, his aversion to legal nuance, and his deep confusion about the profession he presumes to critique.<\/p>\n If that makes me a \u201cpretentious prick\u201d, so be it. I\u2019ll wear the label \u2014 along with my robe and my bar card \u2014 while defending due process against both the abuses of power and the seductions of righteous fury.<\/p>\n With that addressed, and in a spirit of charitable clarity toward Mr. Radcliffe, I offer below a straightforward distillation of the core arguments from my previous two posts. The format has been reworked for ease of comprehension \u2014 for Mr. Radcliffe and for any others who may have shared his confusion. I have also retitled the piece in a manner that may prove more accessible, or at least less likely to be misconstrued.<\/p>\n Strategic Survival: The ICC, U.S. Sanctions, & the Lawful Limits of Sovereignty<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0 Introduction: A Legal Crisis in Geopolitical Crossfire<\/strong><\/p>\n The International Criminal Court (ICC) now faces its gravest political challenge of its existence. The issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and U.S. personnel connected to the Afghanistan investigation has provoked fierce backlash. Most notably, the United States has imposed targeted sanctions not only on ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, but also on four sitting ICC judges\u2014an unprecedented intrusion into judicial independence.<\/p>\n The legal merits of the arrest warrants are debatable. But more urgent is the strategic question facing the Court: can it survive this confrontation while preserving its mission? This commentary argues that a legally grounded, strategically sound recalibration is both possible and necessary. It will explore the ICC’s statutory tools\u2014including jurisdictional review, prosecutorial discretion, and prosecutorial sequencing\u2014as potential off-ramps to avoid institutional isolation.<\/p>\n The following analysis first outlines the legal tools available to the ICC. It then reframes those tools through a realist lens\u2014one more attuned to survival than symbolism.<\/em><\/p>\n II.\u00a0 Sovereignty and the Sanctions Paradigm<\/strong><\/p>\n Sanctions are not per se unlawful under international law. They are a standard tool of statecraft\u2014used multilaterally by the U.N. Security Council and unilaterally by powerful states. The United States defends its sanctions on the ICC by claiming that the Court is exceeding its jurisdiction, asserting legal authority over non-party nationals without consent.<\/p>\n For the U.S., the ICC\u2019s actions are not just unlawful\u2014they are threatening. Prosecuting Israeli and American officials risks impairing military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and regional stability. These are not abstract concerns; they form the bedrock of U.S. national security policy.<\/p>\n For its part, the ICC operates under the Rome Statute, which authorizes jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party (Article 12). Since Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor has asserted jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on its claimed territory. But both the U.S. and Israel contest this\u2014legally and politically.<\/p>\n III. Jurisdictional Levers: Revisiting the Palestine Question<\/strong><\/p>\n A key pressure point is the Court’s 2021 decision affirming Palestine\u2019s status as a State Party under the Rome Statute. Pre-Trial Chamber I accepted Palestine\u2019s accession and U.N. General Assembly recognition as sufficient for jurisdiction. But this decision remains contested. Critics argue that Palestine does not meet the classical Montevideo criteria for statehood\u2014defined territory, effective government, and capacity to engage in foreign relations.<\/p>\n This ambiguity creates a legitimate opening for procedural reconsideration. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) could reframe the scope of the investigation or seek clarification from a newly constituted Pre-Trial Chamber. This would not reverse prior rulings outright, but would signal that jurisdictional issues remain open to legal review.<\/p>\n Such a move provides legal breathing room. By slowing the pace of highly sensitive prosecutions, the Court creates diplomatic space while retaining its statutory authority.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0 Prosecutorial Discretion and the Interests of Justice<\/strong><\/p>\n The Rome Statute grants the Prosecutor wide latitude under Article 53 to decline or defer action when it is not \u201cin the interests of justice.\u201d This clause allows the Prosecutor to consider factors like victim preferences, gravity, and\u2014crucially\u2014the feasibility of proceeding.<\/p>\n Sidebar: What Does Article 53 Actually Allow?<\/strong><\/p>\n Article 53 of the Rome Statute<\/strong> empowers the Prosecutor to decline investigation or prosecution if:<\/p>\n Past uses include former Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s hesitance on pursuing U.S. officials in the Afghanistan probe, and delays in Kenya\u2019s political violence cases.<\/p>\n The \u201cinterests of justice\u201d test is not judicially dictated in every instance. The Prosecutor retains operational discretion. In the present moment, that means the option to defer or sequence arrests, particularly when enforcement is politically unviable or institutionally dangerous.<\/p>\n Strategic delay is not abdication\u2014it is statutory prudence. By focusing initial efforts elsewhere, the Prosecutor preserves the Court\u2019s credibility while reducing confrontation with powerful states.<\/p>\n V.\u00a0 Sequencing and Strategy: Mid-Level First, Leadership Later<\/strong><\/p>\n A well-worn prosecutorial path in international criminal law is to begin with mid-level or field-level actors. This \u201cbottom-up\u201d approach allows prosecutors to:<\/p>\n This was the strategy at both the ICTY and ICTR, where initial indictments targeted lower-ranking figures before expanding to political and military leaders. It also allows national jurisdictions\u2014like Israel\u2019s own military legal system\u2014an opportunity to investigate and act, thus reinforcing the principle of complementarity.<\/p>\n In the present context, such sequencing could defuse immediate tensions while demonstrating institutional integrity.<\/p>\n VI.\u00a0 Realism and the Limits of Sovereignty<\/strong><\/p>\n Israel and the United States argue that the ICC violates their sovereignty. But sovereignty, under international law, does not shield states from accountability for grave crimes. The ICC was created precisely to pierce sovereign impunity when domestic systems fail.<\/p>\n Yet, the ICC must also grapple with reality: sovereignty is more than a legal doctrine. It is a geopolitical tool wielded by powerful states to assert prerogatives and shield allies.<\/p>\n The ICC\u2019s challenge, therefore, is not to reject sovereignty\u2014but to work within its lawful limits. Jurisdiction must be robust but not reckless. Prosecutions must be ambitious but feasible. The goal is to uphold justice without inviting institutional annihilation.<\/p>\n VII. Realist Lens: What the ICC Must Now Weigh<\/strong><\/p>\n Sanctions are coercive tools, not legal arguments. They serve interests, not ideals. The U.S. has deployed them against adversaries and allies alike\u2014from Iran to China to the ICC. The message is clear: defy strategic interests, and pay the price.<\/p>\n Condemnation of sanctions, while morally warranted, lacks coercive force. The ICC cannot impose counter-sanctions, freeze U.S. assets, or leverage economic tools. Unless it adapts, it risks being sidelined.<\/p>\n Though Trump initiated the ICC sanctions regime, the Biden administration has adopted a similar posture. Congress\u2014on both sides of the aisle\u2014has drafted legislation to expand sanctions. This is not a partisan spat; it is entrenched policy.<\/p>\n Targeting independent judges crosses a red line. It undermines the rule of law and judicial independence. But protest alone is insufficient. The ICC must respond not just with outrage\u2014but with resilience and recalibration.<\/p>\n VIII. Triad Strategy: A Lawful Off-Ramp<\/strong><\/p>\n Together, these measures create a principled offramp. They do not abandon the Court\u2019s mission\u2014they preserve it.<\/p>\n IX.\u00a0 Anticipating the Criticisms<\/strong><\/p>\n X.\u00a0 A Roadmap to Realpolitik-Informed Justice<\/strong><\/p>\n XI.\u00a0 Conclusion: Strategy Over Sanctimony<\/strong><\/p>\n The ICC\u2019s mission\u2014to end impunity for the gravest international crimes\u2014remains vital. But moral clarity is no substitute for institutional viability. Outrage, however justified, cannot shield the Court from geopolitical reprisal.<\/p>\n The strategic use of jurisdictional review, prosecutorial discretion, and sequencing offers a legal path through the current storm. These tools are not evasions; they are instruments of endurance.<\/p>\n International law and international relations are intertwined.\u00a0 If justice is to be done, the Court must first survive. And to survive, it must wield its own legal instruments\u2014not to retreat, but to recalibrate. That is not capitulation. It is strategic survival in service of justice.<\/p>\n Finally, to Mr. Radcliffe, to paraphrase the saying misattributed to Voltaire:\u00a0 I disapprove of what you say [and how you say it], but I will defend to the death your right to say it.\u00a0 Which is why your comment was approved for publication<\/a> and will live on in this blog.<\/p>\n And, as always, to all those who take the time to read my posts:<\/p>\n I mean it.<\/p>\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n Strategy<\/strong><\/td>\n Description<\/strong><\/td>\n Benefit<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Revisit Palestine Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td>\n Trigger procedural review of Palestine\u2019s statehood under Montevideo criteria or Oslo framework<\/td>\n Creates legal pause, de-escalates tensions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Invoke Article 53<\/strong><\/td>\n Use “interests of justice” to delay or sequence top-level warrants<\/td>\n Preserves legal integrity, buys time<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Mid-Level First<\/strong><\/td>\n Focus initial prosecutions on operational-level actors<\/td>\n Builds case strength, avoids immediate backlash<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n![\"Don't](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/comments2.png?resize=274%2C184&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n