It is not too late to change course: Why Britain is unwise permitting the US to use its military bases to execute Operation Epic Fury

Posted on March 11, 2026 by Guest Post Admin

The following is a guest post by Thomas Obel Hansen, who is is the Beatriz Galindo Distinguished Professor with the Department of International Law, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid; he has a research affiliation with the Transitional Justice Institute, Ulster University.

(An American bomber at UK air base after warning of surge in strikes on Iran, on 6 March 2026. Photo: Reuters)

The following post follows up on my previous post here at Justice in Conflict last week, which explained why the Sánchez government in Spain is right to say “no to war” in Iran and is emerging as the strongest voice in the West for the universal application of international law. A key measure taken by Spain to give effect to its war objections involves denying the US the right to use Spanish military bases to execute Operation Epic Fury. These are exactly the types of measures that States can take to give meaningful effect to their international obligations. 

In contrast, several countries in Europe – including the UK – have taken a fundamentally different approach, permitting the US to use their military facilities in support of the war on Iran. This post questions the legality and wisdom of doing so, focusing here on the UK’s approach.

Whereas the UK in the run-up to the present war on Iran took the position that it would not permit the US to use its bases for strikes on Iran, on 1 March British Prime Minister Keir Starmer reversed course. On the same day, the government published a summary of its legal position on “the legality of defensive action in respect of Iranian regional attacks”. That summary states that the UK will take a range of action, ostensibly acting in “collective self-defence of regional allies who have requested support”.

Continue reading →
Posted in Guest Posts, International Law, Iran, Spain, United Kingdom, United States | Tagged | 1 Comment

The strongest voice in the West for the universal application of international law: Why Spain is right to stand up for international law in the US-Israeli war in Iran

Posted on March 4, 2026 by Guest Post Admin

The following is a guest post by Thomas Obel Hansen, who is is the Beatriz Galindo Distinguished Professor with the Department of International Law, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid; he has a research affiliation with the Transitional Justice Institute, Ulster University.

Smoke following strikes on Iran earlier this week (Photo: BBC)

The Spanish government should be lauded for standing up for international law in the current war of aggression against Iran. Whereas many States in the West have stated broad support of the goals pursued by the US and Israel in Iran – and have been mainly muted about the fact that this military campaign is manifestly illegal – Pedro Sánchez’ government in Spain has taken a fundamentally different approach. Sánchez has said “no to war”, insisting – and rightly so – that US/ Israel military action in Iran is “unjustified, dangerous and illegal”. 

This position is coupled with real action not to be complicit in a war of aggression, including denying the US the right to use Spanish military bases to assist Operation Epic Fury. This has triggered anger in Washington, with President Donald Trump calling Spain “terrible” and threatening to “cut off all dealings with Spain”. President Trump also suggests the US could simply ignore Sánchez’ decision and continue to use the military bases in Spain: “if we wanted, we could just fly in and use it; nobody’s going to tell us not to use it”. If doing so, that would amount to yet another breach of UN Charter law.

Sánchez responded to these suggestions in a televised address on March 4, stating that Spain will “not be complicit in something that is bad for the world – and that is also contrary to our values ​​and interests – simply out of fear of reprisals from someone”. That response should be read in a context where Spain has been among the most vocal voices in the West condemning the genocide in Gaza and – unlike many others – taken meaningful measures to address it. This has caused friction with the US and Israel.

Continue reading →
Posted in Canada, France, Gaza, Guest Posts, International Law, Iran, Israel, Spain, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Canada’s record on illegal and aggressive war is more complicated – and worse – than you think. It’s in Ottawa’s interest for that to change.

Posted on March 2, 2026 by Mark Kersten
Explosions in Tehran, Iran, on March 2, 2026. (Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA)

In response to U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, the Canadian government declined to defend the United Nations Charter and its prohibitions on the unlawful use of force under Article 2(4). Statements by Prime Minister Mark Carney and Foreign Minister Anita Ananda did not even refer to international law’s relevance to the growing conflict in the Middle East. Their reaction left former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy so exasperated that he said Mr. Carney was “abandoning” Canada’s commitment to preventing aggressive war. He added that Canada was “simply endorsing Trump’s sort of new obsession with becoming an imperial power… the worst kind of situation for Canada.” Axworthy is right. But the truth is, Canada has long been a laggard in denouncing acts of aggression. Against the backdrop of threats to not only its adversaries, but to its allies and Canada itself, it’s time for Ottawa to change tack.

First, though, let’s be clear: while the Iranian regime is beyond the pale in its cruelty and disregard for human rights, the strikes on Iran were manifestly illegal. Neither justification for war – self-defence or UN Security Council approval – were met. There’s no evidence that Iran posed any imminent threat, and the rationale of “pre-emptive” strikes on Iran is word salad for illegal attacks. This is not controversial, but the consensus of international lawyers. As Marco Milanovic explains, “It simply cannot reasonably be argued that these strikes are lawful under the Charter… The violation of the Charter here is simply as plain as it could possibly be.”

It thus appears that Canada’s government has cheered on an act of aggression, the illegal commission of war by one state against another. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Canada, Crime of Aggression, Human Rights, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, International Law, Iran, Israel, United Nations, United States | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Middle Power Problems: What if Canada had arrested Netanyahu when he flew over the country?

Posted on February 24, 2026 by Mark Kersten

The following is a guest post by Sarah Nimigan, on the recent travel of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Canadian airspace, in defiance of the ICC’s warrant against him. Sarah is a an Academic Research Associate with the Centre for Transitional Justice and Post-Conflict Reconstruction, at the Western University, in London, Ontario.

Flight path showing an aircraft carrying Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu entering Canadian airspace (Photo: FlightRadar24)

Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew over three Canadian provinces on his way to Washington D.C: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick. The failure to prevent the use of Canadian airspace and to arrest Netanyahu, led to heavy scrutiny of the Canadian government and Prime Minister Mark Carney. The obligation to arrest the Israeli leader stems from his outstanding arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for allegedly committing the war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation as a method of warfare and of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. When he became Canadian Prime Minister, Carney said Canada was prepared to arrest Netanyahu if he visited Canada. What happened?

The point of this post is not to debate the merits of the charges against Netanyahu. They exist and create a cascading series of obligations on the States Parties to the ICC, including Canada. What this post does is examine what would have happened if, instead of allowing Israel to use its airspace, Canada had arrested Netanyahu.

Canada’s relationship with the ICC has historically been a close one. Ottawa took a leading role in its establishment and institutional operationalization within the Court, and has had nationals occupy key roles in both the judiciary and the Office of the Prosecutor at various points since its conception. Canada demonstrated its strong commitment to the Court by not only ratifying the Rome Statute but also implementing it into domestic law, under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Canada, Guest Posts, ICC Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (ICC), Israel, Palestine, Palestine and the ICC, United States | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

To Exhume or not to Exhume? The Decision is for Indigenous communities, and Indigenous communities alone, to make

Posted on February 17, 2026 by Mark Kersten
Burial site at the Marieval Indian Residential School operated from 1899 to 1997, in the Cowessess First Nation (Photo: CBC)

They knew the bodies were there. Hundreds of them. Yet they could not agree on whether or not to exhume them. In the end, the Polish authorities and Jewish community members compromised: there would be a quick and partial exhumation at the site of the 1941 Jedwabne massacre, where hundreds of Jews were killed — including women and children — by Poles. Any remains discovered would be placed back in the earth.

A world and six decades away, forensic experts and analysts still search for the remains of victims of the 9/11 attacks. Over 1,000 have yet to be identified. At the 9/11 Memorial & Museum in Lower Manhattan, and behind the breathtaking blue tiled wall embossed with Virgil’s line “No day shall erase you from the memory of time,” remains are still being analyzed and stored. Many of the families of victims have said that their loved ones should stay there, with the others who were killed on Sept. 11, 2001. The wife of one victim, for example, says that even if her husband is never identified, she feels “he is home. This is where he took his last breath, his last step. This is where he lost his life.”

These are just two examples where families and communities have decided not to exhume or remove the remains of victims of mass atrocities. There are many others. 

I know this because I studied them, as part of my work for the Office of the Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites associated with residential schools, an office established by the Canadian government in June 2022, following the revelation of unmarked graves at the site of a former Residential School in Kamloops, British Columbia. My work focused on applying international human rights law and international criminal law to missing and disappeared Indigenous children, including taking a human rights approach to unmarked and mass graves. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Canada, Crimes against humanity, Indigenous Peoples | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Character of International Law: A Festschrift to Rob Cryer

Posted on January 27, 2026 by Mark Kersten

The following is a guest post by Emma Breeze, Mark Drumbl, and Gerry Simpson, on their new co-edited book in honour of the late Professor Rob Cryer. Emma is an Assistant Professor in International Criminal Law at the University of Birmingham. Mark is the Class of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University. Gerry is a Professor of Public International Law at the London School of Economics.

  1. Overview: Genealogy and Tapestry of this Project

Professor Rob Cryer passed away from lymphoma at the age of forty-six on January 3, 2021. The new book, The Character of International Law: A Festschrift to Rob Cryer, is celebration of Rob’s life. It doubles as a memorial to Rob and as a distinctive and original contribution to those disciplines and sub-fields – international humanitarian law, international criminal law, legal theory, penal law, criminology, and public international law – to which Rob devoted much of his academic life. 

This book’s title is a play on the word ‘character’. It refers, of course, to Rob’s own character, a character full of character we might say, and one who stamped his identity on the various fields in which and with which he engaged. Rob’s career coincided with the lifespan of contemporary international criminal law and a particular style of international law, which began in the halcyon immediate post-Cold War years. Character also refers to something general, perhaps elusive. When we talk about the ‘character of international law’ we gesture towards an indefinable quality associated with its overall effects on the world, its reputation, its dignity, and its grand projects. This is a book about the life of law and about a life in law that inspired many lives in law.

Continue reading →
Posted in Guest Posts, International Criminal Justice, International Law | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Hundreds of Iranian regime figures have reportedly resided in Canada. When will Ottawa hold them accountable?

Posted on January 22, 2026 by Mark Kersten
Demonstrators in Iran (MAHSA/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images)

We do not know the exact number of Iranians killed, arbitrarily arrested, and tortured during Iran’s lethal crackdown on protesters – but we do know the number is staggering. Foreign citizens, including a Canadianare among those murdered by Iranian authorities. In moments of atrocity and upheaval abroad, it can be hard to know what a country like Canada should do beyond statements of solidary and concern. But there is a step Ottawa can take immediately: open investigations and prosecute Iranian regime officials who are present in Canada and who are implicated in crimes against humanity.

This is not an abstract proposal. In 2021, a Tehran police chief was spotted at a Toronto-area gym. In 2024, it was reported that 700 Iranian nationals linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) resided in Canada – the same group that has been designated as a terrorist entity by the Canadian government. That same year, five Iranian regime figures faced deportation back to Iran.

Deportation? Yes. The governing Liberal government moved to send regime figures, including some involved in repression and human rights violations in Iran, back to Iran. That is also the policy of the opposition Conservative Party. Responding to the alleged presence of 700 IRGC-linked figures in Canada, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre stated in February 2025: “We will find and deport all of the IRGC’s thugs… They will be kicked out of this country.”

Continue reading →
Posted in Canada, International Criminal Justice, Iran, Universal Jurisdiction | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Dreaming of Justice Part 4: Double Standards in Global Support for Ukraine and Myanmar

Posted on January 21, 2026 by Mark Kersten

The following is the fourth instalment in a four-part series by Jenna Dolecek on justice and accountability for victims and survivors of atrocities committed in Myanmar. For the first, second, and third parts of the series, please see here and here.

Refugees and humanitarians in the Kutupalong refugee camp, Bangladesh (Photo: HI)

The world’s rapid mobilization to support Ukraine’s pursuit of justice stands in stark contrast to its inconsistent response to Myanmar. This final installment asks why and what these disparities reveal about political will, global empathy, and the unequal attention of international justice. It reflects on what Myanmar’s struggle tells us about who receives global solidarity and who is left waiting.

Our previous posts have discussed what justice means to the people of Myanmar and how the leveraging of universal jurisdiction (UJ) is an attempt to fill a gap in accountability. We have also explored possible alternative justice mechanisms, such as hybrid courts, like the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia, and the local, tiered gacaca court system in Rwanda. Today, we end on a comparison, examining why some conflicts receive more attention and support than others.

Double Standards in Global Support for Ukraine and Myanmar

Why do some conflicts and demands for accountability receive more attention and support than others? 

One possible answer is that civil war does not garner the same reaction as external acts and wars of aggression. But why? The only difference between external aggression and internal attacks is crossing a border. Yet, it is civilians whopay the price regardless of the attacker’s origin.

Studies have shown that less attention is paid to civil wars as opposed to interstate wars. When it comes to media coverage, which shapes much of public opinion, some believe the priority in coverage is due to countries’ geopolitical and economic significance. If a country is less economically and politically significant, it is less likely to receive as much coverage as conflicts involving countries with more power and influence. For example, the conflict in Sudan has costover 150,000 people their lives and displaced over 10 million. Yet, it has been eclipsed in media coverage by the suffering in Ukraine and Gaza, two conflicts with far reaching geopolitical and economic consequences. However, the instability in Sudan has important geopolitical consequences, affecting neighbouring countries and trade partners. It may not be as globally significant, but the conflict has serious regional implications. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Burma/Myanmar, Guest Posts, International Law, Justice, Myanmar, Ukraine | Tagged | 1 Comment

Dreaming of Justice Part 3: Alternative Approaches to Accountability in Myanmar

Posted on January 19, 2026 by Mark Kersten

The following is the third instalment in a four-part series by Jenna Dolecek on justice and accountability for victims and survivors of atrocities committed in Myanmar. For the first and second parts of the series, please see here and here.

Demonstrators during protests against the coup in Yangon, Myanmar, March 28, 2021 (Photo: Stringer / Getty Images)

International legal processes are only one path that can be taken in the quest for justice. In our previous post, universal jurisdiction (UJ) was examined as a possible avenue when the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) lack jurisdiction. However, international courts and courts in other countries are not the only accountability mechanisms that exist. Conflicts of the past have seen different approaches to justice, such as the domestic and international hybrid court set up in Cambodia or the local gacaca courts in Rwanda. This post explores the promises and pitfalls of alternative judicial processes.

With the ICC only having jurisdiction over the Rohingya genocide and with only one UJ case being accepted thus far, other approaches to accountability in Myanmar are required. One possibility, which has already been tested in southeast Asia, could be a special court akin to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), set up solely to try crimes of the Khmer Rouge committed during their reign of terror in the late 1970s.

The ECCC is home to trials of former Khmer Rouge officials responsible for the genocide led by Pol Pot from 1975-1979. The Court was created by an agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia, whichasked the international community for assistance in prosecuting perpetrators. Pol Pot died in 1997 and the ECCC did not become operational until 2006 — twenty-seven years after the genocide ended. Due to the creation of the court and its trials being such long processes, the most important official and perpetrator escaped accountability. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), Gacaca, Guest Posts, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Myanmar, Rwanda, Rwandan Genocide, Traditional Justice, Transitional Justice | Tagged | Leave a comment

Dreaming of Justice Part 2: Leveraging Universal Jurisdiction for Accountability in Myanmar

Posted on January 15, 2026 by Mark Kersten

The following is the second instalment in a four-part series by Jenna Dolecek on justice and accountability for victims and survivors of atrocities committed in Myanmar. For the first part of the series, please see here.

(Photo: Getty Images)

When it comes to accountability for atrocities committed in Myanmar, international courts and United Nations (UN) mechanisms are severely limited by political gridlock. Unfazed, some survivors and advocates have turned to universal jurisdiction (UJ) — a legal principle allowing national courts to prosecute grave crimes committed abroad. This second installment looks at how lawyers and activists are using UJ cases in Argentina, Germany, Turkiye, the Philippines, and Indonesia, to seek justice for Myanmar’s victims, and what challenges and possibilities this approach holds.

Among the many instances of atrocities committed in Myanmar, only those committed against the Rohingya have been taken up by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the genocide is only one facet of the civil war in Myanmar. Innumerable war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committedall over the country for decades and against different ethnic groups. The ICC lacks jurisdiction over these crimes, as Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute and its jurisdiction over atrocities committed against the Rohingya is limited to those linked to the territory of Bangladesh, a member-state of the ICC. 

In the previous post, differing visions of justice across Myanmar’s communities were explored. Some want justice in the form of courts, others in the form of respect for human rights, economic equality, safety, and citizenship guarantees. Now, we will explore whether and how UJ can be used to achieve justice where international courts and the UN have left an accountability void.

Continue reading →
Posted in Burma/Myanmar, Guest Posts, International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Justice, Myanmar, Transitional Justice, Universal Jurisdiction | 2 Comments