Obligations, up in the Air? Are ICC member-states obligated to arrest Netanyahu when he enters their airspace?

Posted on July 29, 2026 by Mark Kersten
Netanyahu’s recent flight path

In late July, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travelled to the White House with a mission: get America to continue its war against Iran and to support him in his forthcoming election campaign. On his way to Washington, the aircraft carrying Netanyahu, the Wing of Zion, flew over multiple member-states of the International Criminal Court (ICC): Greece, Italy, France, and Canada. It was not the first time in recent months that the Israeli leader had entered the airspace of these states. But as late as September 2025, Netanyahu had been forced to take a more circuitous route to the U.S. What hasn’t changed over that time the ICC arrest warrant Netanyahu faces. 

Do states have an obligation to enforce warrants in the air above them? The European states that allowed Netanyahu to cross their airspace have thus far been silent on their reasoning. According to Canadian officials responding to reports that Netanyahu’s flight over two Canadian provinces, however, “Canada does not currently link its overflight policy to law enforcement objectives except where an imminent security risk is present. This policy is regularly reviewed.” 

This would suggest that states have an obligation to arrest ICC suspects only when they are boots-on the-ground, physically on their land and not if they’re at sea or in the airspace above them. As a matter of law, though, is there really such a carve out?

Continue reading →
Posted in Benjamin Netanyahu, Canada, France, Greece, ICC Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Law, Italy, Mark Carney, State Sovereignty | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Under pressure from Washington, states are withdrawing from the ICC: Time for a Membership Drive?

Posted on July 27, 2026 by Mark Kersten
The International Criminal Court (Photo: Mark Kersten)

It has been barely two weeks since U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Washington’s intention to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court “brick by brick”, and now two states have announced their withdrawal from the Court. Both Venezuela and Chad have claimed that their decisions were the result of the ICC’s alleged biases. In reality, American pressure drove each to please (or appease) the Trump administration, with both Caracas and N’Djamena being pushed in recent days to leave the Court. Not surprisingly, their decisions were celebrated in the Trump administration, which is encouraging “all members of the ICC to withdraw from the Rome Statute.” 

The situation facing the ICC will get worse before it gets better. The withdrawals of Venezuela and Chad will be followed by others. To save the institution, those states that still believe in the Court’s mission should meet America’s campaign for ICC withdrawals by organizing a coherent and comprehensive membership drive aimed at getting states to join the Court.

The Trump government knows that it cannot destroy the ICC alone. If it could, it would have done so long ago. It needs other states to join its cause. A logical prong in its efforts to destroy the ICC is thus to push member-states to leave the Court. The way for the ICC to survive is to directly counter this campaign by ensuring that its membership remains robust. But it cannot do this alone. It needs the help of its members.

Continue reading →
Posted in Chad, ICC Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, International Law, United States, Venezuela | Tagged | 2 Comments

Karim Khan is removed as ICC Prosecutor. What now?

Posted on July 25, 2026 by Mark Kersten
Karim Khan speaks at the Assembly of States Parties in 2022

Member-states of the International Criminal Court (ICC) have voted to oust chief Prosecutor Karim Khan. The British lawyer has faced serious allegations of sexual misconduct by a member of his staff and was also a lightning rod for criticism from some quarters over his prosecutorial decisions, none more so that his investigation into the situation in Gaza. With Khan gone, what happens now to this beleaguered institution?

First, some clarifications. There has been a great deal of misinformation spread by certain media outlets and states about the allegations that Khan faces. This much is clear: the allegations against the now former chief Prosecutor had nothing to do with his decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza. Khan’s accuser herself has made that repeatedly clear and spoke about how she hesitated to come forward with her allegations because of how it would be weaponized by those seeking to discredit the ICC over its investigation into atrocities in Gaza. She has also said: “I fully and entirely support the court’s investigations.”

At the same time, there is no credible evidence that the allegations against Khan are part of a conspiracy orchestrated by Israel or the United States to oust him. When the accusations of sexual harassment were first made, some – including in the Court –assumed it must have been part of a plot against the institution organized by politically-motivated actors. But that does not appear to be the case.

Continue reading →
Posted in International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, Israel, Karim Khan, Palestine, United States | 4 Comments

The Business of War Crimes: Western states warn companies they can be held accountable for West Bank atrocities

Posted on June 15, 2026 by Mark Kersten
New houses being constructed at the Israeli settlement of Eldad, south of Bethlehem in the West Bank, in 2019 (Photo: Garry Walsh/Trócaire.

In late May, nine Western leaders issued a statement regarding the situation in the West Bank. It was largely a repeat of past condemnations of settler violence and Israeli moves to displace Palestinians and establish new illegal settlements, including the so-called E1 plan. But one aspect of their statement was novel: a direct warning to businesses to avoid complicity in West Bank atrocities. This emphasis on corporate responsibility for international crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, is much needed and welcome. Without addressing the profit-motivated aspects of atrocities, accountability is incomplete.

In recent months, the states behind the May statement have had their patience with Tel Aviv run thin. Five of the nine have recognized Palestine as state. Some have done so with the intention of thwarting Israel from erasing Palestine and any two-state solution. But few if any have pointed to the contributions of businesses to the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and the relentless effort to forcibly displace Palestinians from their homes and communities. Until now. 

The statement by the leaders declared that: 

“Businesses should not bid for construction tenders for E1 or other settlement developments. They should be aware of legal and reputational consequences of participating in settlement construction including the risk of involving themselves in serious breaches of international law.”

The signatory states have thus issued a warning: those who run companies involved in operations in the illegally occupied West Bank could face prosecution for their involvement in serious breaches of international law, namely war crimes and crimes against humanity. Their position is in line with the Nuremberg legacy, the post-WWII trials of industrial leaders, and the understanding that mass atrocities are never committed without corporate sponsorship.

Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Canada cannot tackle repression in the country by deporting perpetrators back to oppress others: Linking transnational repression in Canada to rights violations and atrocities committed abroad

Posted on May 5, 2026 by Mark Kersten

Dear JiC readers: I had the privilege of testifying this week at the Canadian House of Commons’ Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The topic was Transnational Repression (TNR). In my testimony, I emphasized the links between atrocities and human rights violations in source countries with transnational repression in Canada. Understanding those links, I argued, is necessary to devise policies that hold perpetrators accountable in meaningful ways – and not simply rely on quick-fixes and immigrations remedies like deportations. I also testified to emerging threats of TNR, including that which is emanating from the United States. For those interested, you can find the recording of my testimony here, and the text of it below. Thank you, as always for your readership!

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As transnational repression, or TNR, continues to grow, it is critical to remind ourselves: transnational repression is not waged against abstract entities or states, but against people and communities.  Canada’s response must therefore be grounded in human rights.

With my time, I will emphasize three points and conclude with recommendations.

First, TNR in Canada is inextricably linked to human rights violations committed in source countries.

Second, understanding these links means tackling both, by holding perpetrators accountable. 

Third, the threats of TNR are growing and include states that Canada considers allies.

TNR is not separate from repression in source countries. It’s an extension of it. Those who call out and push back on atrocities – in Iran, Russia, China, India, etc. – are targets for repression here.

How Ottawa responds must appreciate that it is those who dream of human rights in their homelands that face the nightmare of transnational repression in Canada.Given the springtime, consider the following analogy. 

If Canada continues to focus only on how repression is expressed on Canadian soil, it will be cutting dandelion flowers while leaving the roots intact. Worse, current Canadian policies might even allow the weedy world of repression to flourish.

I have studied the presence of Iranian regime figures in Canada and what responses are available to authorities. And like others, I was dismayed to see some MPs calling for Iranian regime figures to be deported back to Iran.

Continue reading →
Posted in Canada, Canadian War Crimes Program, Crimes against humanity, Genocide, Iran, Transnational Repression, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Options for justice in Iran: The need to preserve evidence and plan for accountability

Posted on April 28, 2026 by Mark Kersten
Demonstrates in London in 2022 (Photo: Koca Vehbi/ Shutterstock)

It is not an exaggeration to say that Iranian civilians have been subjected to atrocities by every party involved in the conflict in Iran: the Iranian regime, U.S. forces, and the Israeli military. Iranians deserve better than the stream of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by a government hell-bent on repressing its population and states that view their country as the latest theatre for their illegal and senseless wars. The plight of Iranians demands accountability. But what options exist? In what follows, I canvass avenues for justice, emphasizing which ones are available and should be prioritized.

The International Criminal Court 

A common, knee-jerk reaction to reports of atrocities is to call on the International Criminal Court (ICC). Unfortunately, the ICC cannot act in the interests of justice for Iranians. While Tehran has reportedly forwarded evidence of atrocities committed by others to the ICC, Iran is not a member-state and isn’t likely to expose itself – or its legion of perpetrators – to the Court’s scrutiny by accepting its jurisdiction over Iranian territory. At the same, the United States and Israel are not members of the ICC either, so their citizens cannot be investigated for any atrocities committed in Iran.

In short, the ICC is currently a non-starter. But its absence from the accountability equation does not mean that nothing can be done. Far from it. States can act to achieve accountability for Iran in the absence of the ICC. And they must.

Universal Jurisdiction

Iranian regime figures – including those responsible for atrocities – regularly travel abroad. This creates an opportunity to hold them to account under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows states to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of international crimes even when they are committed by foreign agents and against foreign citizens. There is even some precedence for this when it comes to Iran.

Continue reading →
Posted in ICC Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (ICC), Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Universal Jurisdiction | 1 Comment

Centering accountability for atrocities: Why Lebanon should (finally) join the ICC

Posted on April 6, 2026 by Mark Kersten
Destruction in Lebanon (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)

“We are going to do what we did in Gaza.”

That’s how a senior Israeli official described the Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon. The threat is real. Similar tactics to those used in Gaza are playing out in Lebanon: evacuation orders followed shortly thereafter by the wholesale destruction of entire apartment blocks, dozens of medics and first responders killed, Israeli soldiers looting the homes of civilians, infrastructure – including bridges connecting the south to the rest of the country – decimated. After a month, more than 1,200 people have been killed, including more than 120 children. One million have been displaced.

If Israel’s operations in Lebanon continue, worse will follow. As in Gaza and the West Bank, there is a real possibility that land now occupied by Israeli forces in Lebanon won’t ever be returned, but instead slowly settled and annexed.

Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza are so unequivocal that former allies and Western states, most recently Iceland and the Netherlands, have joined South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Even Germany, an almost unconditional backer of Israel, has decided it can’t defend the country at the ICJ; last month, it formally withdrew its support for the Israeli side in the case.

But what will international law have to say about the violence and atrocities being waged against the Lebanese people? The answer will depend in large part on whether Lebanon finally decides, as Palestine did, to join the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Continue reading →
Posted in Gaza, ICC Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, United States | Leave a comment

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 | 2 Comments

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 , , , , | 1 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