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

Dreaming of Justice Part One: What Justice Means to Myanmar’s Communities

Posted on January 13, 2026 by Mark Kersten

The following is the first instalment in a four-part series by Jenna Dolecek on justice and accountability for victims and survivors of atrocities committed in Myanmar. Jenna is an international criminal investigations consultant who investigated crimes committed in Myanmar through her work at Myanmar Witness (Centre for Information Resilience) and the United Nations Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar.

(Art: Enayet Khan, Rohingya artist)

What does it take to turn a dream into reality? 

After eight decades, the conflict in Myanmar is now the longest ongoing civil war in the world. In February 2021, Myanmar experienced its second military coup, led by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. Accountability efforts have largely focused on the Rohingya genocide, which occurred between 2015 and 2019. The only court that has accepted a criminal complaint on Hlaing’s post-coup crimes is Turkiye, while the International Criminal Court (ICC) is unable to investigate these crimes due to a lack of jurisdiction. Very little justice has been delivered for the crimes committed against ethnic groups since the start of the civil war in the 1940s.

Unfortunately, death tolls were not well recorded from the 1940s to 2010, so statistics will not be accurate. The Political Economy Research Institute from Amherst University, cites two estimates for conflict-related deaths from 1946-2006 as 100,000 to 140,000. From 2010 (when the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project began monitoring the conflict tin Myanmar) to right before the coup, they estimate over 9,000 civilian deaths. As of December 2025, casualty estimates range from 5,000 to nearly 8,000 deaths since the coup in February 2021. This conflict has very likely cost the lives of well over 150,000 people. As of March 2025, over 3.5 million people have been internally displaced since the coup with another 1.5 million refugees seeking asylum abroad. 

It is now well documented that the junta carries out attacks indiscriminately against civilians, which qualify as war crimes. Extensive United Nations investigations, civil society documentation, and verification by open source investigations cover attacks on schools, healthcare, religious centers, and even weddings. Widespread arbitrary detention, torture, and sexual violence all qualify as crimes against humanity. Last but not least, the crime of genocide perpetrated solely against the Rohingya with the most recent campaign spanning 2015-2019. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Bangladesh, Burma/Myanmar, International Court of Justice, International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), International Law, Myanmar, Rohingya | Tagged | Leave a comment

Forget elbows; we need a spine: If Ottawa won’t condemn Trump’s violations of international law, who will speak out when he comes for Canada?

Posted on January 12, 2026 by Mark Kersten
(Photo: PA Media / BBC)

It is not just the attack on Venezuela, breaches of the United Nations’ Charter, or the use of illegal force that still somehow left a dictatorship in place.

It is not just the threats to annex Greenland or to make Canada the 51st state – both of which would violate the territorial integrity of sovereign states protected under international law.

It’s not just the admiration that U.S. President Donald Trump has for Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, both in the process of illegally annexing territory. And it’s not just the sanctions issued against Canadian officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC) or defunding the UN. 

It’s all of it.

America is engaged in a full-frontal, multi-pronged attack on what still exists of the international rules-based order and its institutions – and we are just one year into President Trump’s four-year term. 

Yet the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney appears incapable of calling out U.S. violations of international law. On Venezuela, Mr. Carney tried desperately to avoid condemning the illegal attacks, stating that “Canada calls on all parties to respect international law.” That stance is (hopefully) true every day, and so offers little during a concrete geopolitical crisis. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Canada, Greenland, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Law, Israel, Palestine, Russia, Ukraine, United Nations, United States, Venezuela | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

To Prosecute or Not to Prosecute: Maduro’s Indictment, Head-of-State Immunity, and the United States’ Instrumentalisation of Non-Recognition

Posted on January 6, 2026 by Mark Kersten

Mayya Chaykina join JiC for this post on the issue of head of state immunity and the prosecution of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. Mayya is a master’s student in law at Sciences Po Paris. Her work focuses on international criminal law, mass atrocity prevention, and international human rights mechanisms. 

Maduro in court in New York, on 5 January 2026 (Image: Jane Rosenberg)

After months of threats of using armed force against the Government of Venezuela, United States forces capturedVenezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife on January 3, 2026. Officials have claimed that the operation was in support of the recently unsealed indictment, which charges Maduro with “narco-terrorism conspiracy”, “cocaine importation conspiracy”, and “possession of machineguns and destructive devices”. 

The legitimacy of the criminal charges, however, remains in question. Under the doctrine of immunity ratione personae, or head-of-state immunity, certain officials enjoy immunity from the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction for all acts committed in both a private and official capacity during their time in office. Acknowledged by the International Law Commission (ILC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), head-of-state immunity applies to a troika consisting of Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Ministers for Foreign Affairs. 

Maduro will undoubtedly raise such an objection to the prosecution. On the other hand, the prosecution will likely argue that, given the United States’ non-recognition of Maduro as a legitimate leader, he is not entitled to head-of-state immunity. This analysis will consider the tension between these two questions, ultimately demonstrating that Maduro is entitled to immunity under the current international legal framework and the aims of the immunity doctrine. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Guest Posts, International Law, United States, Venezuela | Tagged , | 5 Comments

The ICC, Trump, and Venezuela: A collision course and Catch-22 over who prosecutes Nicolás Maduro?

Posted on January 5, 2026 by Mark Kersten

Many are wondering: could the International Criminal Court (ICC) conclude that the conduct of the United States in its attacks on Venezuelans, including suspected drug traffickers and other civilians, warrant investigation and prosecution as war crimes? But there’s another ICC-related question that deserves attention: what if the Court has a sealed arrest warrant for ousted president Nicolás Maduro? 

The ICC continues to have jurisdiction over Venezuela. In 2018, a group of states – Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay, and Peru – jointly referred the situation in Venezuela to the Court. Two years later, Venezuela itself requested that the ICC investigate alleged international crimes perpetrated on its territory. The focus of the subsequent investigations by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has been on crimes against humanity committed in the country, with a special focus on mass and arbitrary detention of Maduro’s opponents. Other crimes against humanity have been detailed, most recently by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and include “killings, arbitrary detentions, torture and sexual violence targeting protesters and opponents of President Maduro.”

For years now, and in line with the principle of complementarity, the ICC worked with Venezuelan officials in the hopes that national authorities would investigate and prosecute those responsible for these alleged crimes against humanity themselves. Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan visited Caracas on multiple occasions and even appeared on television with Maduro in 2024. The Court’s efforts came to naught: no one has been prosecuted for crimes against humanity committed in Venezuela. Impunity reigns.

Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments