Vindicating a “Justice Murder”: How a State Agent Wrongfully Convicted on Terrorism Charges won his case 

Kerstin Bree Carlson joins JiC for this guest-post on the remarkable story of Ahmed Samsam, who was convicted on terrorism charges in Spain, only to win his case after proving he was a Danish state agent. Kerstin’s current research examines terrorism trials in Denmark, France and Colombia.

Ahmed Samsam (Photo; AFP)

At a time when government overreach is threatening established liberal, democratic traditions the world over, a curious and important legal development quietly took place in Denmark. Ahmed Samsam, wrongly convicted as a jihadi terrorist in Spain in 2018, forced the Danish government to publicly recognize that he was a Danish agent.

On 2 September 2025, Samsam won his case before the Danish Supreme Court, which found that he was a Danish undercover agent, not a jihadi terrorist, and ordered the government intelligence communities to recognize him as such. Within the hour, the intelligence services who for years had refused to “confirm or deny” knowledge of Samsam claimed him as their own. They are now working with him to clear his conviction in Spain. 

Samsam’s case has many of the trappings of a best-selling conspiracy/thriller novel. It is well known in Denmark but not beyond the country’s borders. The case is notable for the ways that it reveals flaws in Denmark’s human rights protections in cases that involve the state’s own misdeeds. It is also an opportunity to revisit serious legal flaws in cases related to foreign fighters in justice systems across Europe.

Continue reading
Posted in Denmark, Guest Posts, Islamic State, Spain, Syria, Terrorism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Canada helped build the ICC. Now its silence is helping destroy it.

The International Criminal Court (Photo: Mark Kersten, 2024)

The response was swift, until it wasn’t. Reacting to U.S. sanctions against International Criminal Court (ICC) officials – including Canadian judge Kimberly Prost – Canada’s Ambassador to the United Nations Bob Rae called the move “disgraceful”. He added that “attacks” on ICC staff “by Russia, Israel, and the US are intended to weaken and intimidate the international system.”  And then Ambassador Rae’s tweet was deleted. Beyond a meagre statement expressing confidence in Prost but nothing about the attacks against her or the Court, Ottawa’s “elbows up” attitude has been replaced by a deafening and defining silence, one has come to characterize Canada’s attitude towards the ICC. 

Will Canada finally stand up for the court it helped create? Will it defend its diplomats? Or is silence in the face of American attacks the cost of Ottawa’s efforts to placate Donald Trump?

Let’s take a few steps back, first to 2020 and then late-2024.

This is not the first time that the U.S. has sought to destroy the ICC. Doing so is something of a Republican Party pastime. American disdain for the institution is purportedly due to the Court potentially investigating American citizens for alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan and the ICC’s warrants for Israeli leaders over atrocities perpetrated in Gaza. In truth, American disdain for the ICC has always been about control, and Washington’s unrelenting insistence that it determine what the Court can and cannot do.

In 2020, the Trump administration issued sanctions against then ICC-Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and threatened to do so against others, including Canadian Deputy Prosecutor James Stewart.

Continue reading
Posted in Afghanistan, Canada, Donald Trump, ICC Prosecutor, ICC Sanctions, International Criminal Court (ICC), Israel, Palestine and the ICC, United States | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Catching perpetrators to prosecute them abroad: could piecemeal justice contribute to comprehensive accountability for atrocities committed in Gaza?

Graffiti in Vancouver, Canada (Artist: Tabs / Photo: Mark Kersten)

They thought they’d enjoy the festival, maybe a waffle and a Hoegaarden. Instead, the two Israeli soldiers were detained and questioned by Belgian police after facing allegations of war crimes stemming from the Hind Rajab Foundation, an organization set up to track soldiers allegedly implicated in atrocities committed during their service in Gaza.

While no allegations against the Israeli soldiers have been tested, let alone proven, in court, their detention is part of a pattern: at least twelve complaints over alleged war crimes have reportedly been issued in Brazil, Thailand, the Netherlands, Serbia, Ireland, Cyprus, and elsewhere. Is detaining suspects when they travel the future of international justice in Gaza and elsewhere? With bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) under siege and limited in their capacities, it is certainly a part of it.

It is troubling enough that perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are rarely held accountable. It is made that much more offensive when those suspected of committing such atrocities enjoy the privilege of freely traveling abroad. In some instances, however, those moments also offer opportunities to hold perpetrators of atrocities to account.

Continue reading
Posted in Canada, Crimes against humanity, Gaza, Genocide, Israel, Palestine, Palestine and the ICC, Syria, Universal Jurisdiction, War crimes | Tagged | Leave a comment

Algorithms, Automation and Accountability: Imagining Responsibility for the Crimes of Machines

The following is a guest post by Masoud Zamani is a lecturer in international law and international relations at the University of British Columbia. His research focuses on the intersection of emerging technologies and international legal accountability.

(Image by Tavis Coburn / Scientific American)

In recent years, the growing discourse on the regulation of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has brought renewed attention to the question of individual criminal responsibility for acts committed by such systems. While theoretical debates have long grappled with whether individual criminal liability can arise in connection with the conduct of LAWS, more focused discussions on the specific modes of responsibility are now beginning to take shape— and at an accelerating pace.

International criminal law (ICL), shaped historically by a fundamentally anthropocentric orientation, has largely operated on the assumption that crimes are committed by human agents capable of intent, knowledge, and control. As such, traditional modes of individual responsibility, such as ordering, planning, instigating, aiding and abetting, and command responsibility, must now evolve to address the complexities introduced by autonomous warfare.

This post explores the current legal framework surrounding command responsibility under international criminal law and examines emerging conceptual pathways for adapting or extending existing modes of liability to account for the unique challenges posed by LAWS.

Continue reading
Posted in Drones, Guest Posts, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, lethal autonomous weapon systems, War crimes | Tagged | 1 Comment

To understand Genocide in Gaza and elsewhere, we need to talk about it as a process not an event

Palestinians, including children, seeking food in Rafah, Gaza, February 2024 (Photo: Fatima Shbair/AP)

A growing consensus of international and Israeli human rights organizationseditorial boardsIsraeli Holocaust historians and former Attorney Generals, as well as figures like Romeo Dallaire, have all come to the same conclusion: What is happening in Gaza is a genocide. But it is clear there remains confusion about what genocide is and how it is perpetrated, which breeds misinformation and polarization. Given the atrocities being perpetrated in Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar and Palestine, it has never been more important to understand the nature of genocide precisely.

If I could impart one piece of knowledge from my decade-plus of researching and teaching about the topic, it would be this: Genocide is a process, not an event. That insight is critical to understand if we hope to prevent genocides and hold their perpetrators to account.

Genocide is not perpetrated instantaneously. It does not ‘just happen’. Rather, those who seek to commit genocide must prepare their population to either support violence or to turn a blind eye to it. They do so through a process of dehumanizing their target group, often through apartheid-type discrimination. They foster a narrative that the well-being of one group cannot bear the continued existence of the other, whose killing is justified by collectively reducing them to “cockroaches”, “savages”, or “terrorists”.

No genocide has ever been committed – whether it be the Holocaust, Rwanda, Srebrenica, or Gaza – without powerful actors investing tremendous political, economic and social resources into dehumanizing the people targeted by genocidal violence. The 1948 Genocide Convention’s answer to this is to explicitly oblige states to prevent genocide, not merely react to it, a fact too often overlooked.

Continue reading
Posted in Canada, Darfur, Gaza, Genocide, Holocaust, Holodomor, Indigenous Peoples, International Criminal Court (ICC), Israel, Palestine, Rwandan Genocide, Sudan, Yazidi Genocide | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

How understanding atrocity perpetrators requires and benefits from a multi-angled approach – A response to commentaries and critiques 

The following article by Alette Smeulers is a response to the contributions to JiC’s recent symposium on Alette’s book, Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities Terribly and Terrifyingly Normal?. Alette is a professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Her research takes an inter- and multidisciplinary approach, focuses on on the causes and perpetrators of international crimes and terrorism, as well as the international criminal justice systems dealing with these crimes. Other contributions to the symposium can be found here.

(‘Past.Present.Future’ Artwork by Milana Rozovskaja)

I’d like to start by thanking all the contributors for reading the bookPerpetrators of Mass Atrocities – Terribly and Terrifyingly Normal? and for their blogposts, which were enriching and thought provoking. Also, many thanks to Mark Kersten and Aleja Espinosa for providing room and space for the book symposium.

The comments were overwhelmingly positive. Several contributors stressed or added important insights: Mirza Buljubasic emphasized the role of society in normalizing crimes; Mina Rauschenbach’s contribution centered around the moral agency of perpetrators; Bart Nauta discussed the traumatized perpetrator; and Nandor Knust suggested some potential benefits for transitional justice, with which I agree and for which I am very grateful. Two contributors, Iva Vukusic and Carola Lingaas were also, in many ways, positive but clearly more skeptical about my approach. In this response I will focus on their points of critique.

Studying perpetrators of mass atrocities is done by scholars from a wide variety of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, criminology, political science, anthropology, history, genocide studies, terrorism studies, and law. It has become a very inter- and multidisciplinary endeavor. This has significant advantages, leading to a rich and thriving field with many cross fertilizations between the subdisciplines. It also has a few disadvantages, among them that what one scholar is doing does not always sit easily with how another scholar views things. 

Continue reading
Posted in International Criminal Justice, International Law, Symposium Introduction - A JiC Symposium on Alette Smeulers'  "Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities Terribly and Terrifyingly Normal?, Transitional Justice | Tagged | Leave a comment

Sifting through speculation: What we do and don’t know about Canada’s Structural Investigation into the Israel-Hamas War

File:Boy and soldier in front of Israeli wall.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
A Palestinian boy and Israeli soldier in front of the Israeli West Bank Barrier, in 2004 (Photo: Justin McIntosh CC)

In the wake of the recent revelation that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had opened a structural investigation into international crimes committed during the Israeli-Hamas conflict in early 2024, many have projected their gravest fears, and greatest hopes, on what an investigation could mean. The RCMP has provided so few details about its probe that speculation could only follow: Who is the RCMP targeting? What crimes are they focusing on? Why did they come public with the investigation now?

In this article, I endeavour to sift through recent speculation and statements in order to clarify what is and isn’t known about the RCMP’s investigation.

What is a structural investigation?

Rather than focusing on specific individuals or events, a structural investigation seeks to cast a wide net and collect evidence on a range of unlawful and criminal activities. In Canada, a structural investigation can be opened into international crimes under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which allows Canadian authorities to investigate such atrocities even when they are committed abroad, by and against non-citizens of Canada.

The evidence collected can come in the form of witness testimony, documentation, as well as open-source or digital materials, like photographs or videos. Investigators then capture, store and preserve that evidence for potential use in Canadian courts, courts of other states, or international tribunals. 

A common feature of structural investigations is engaging with individuals who have fled to Canada. In this context, it should be noted that it is unclear whether any victims, alleged perpetrators, or witnesses entering the country from Israel or Palestine have been contacted to provide testimony to the RCMP. Moreover, according to the RCMP’s own admission, the “online portal for submissions of information by the public and potential witnesses” is not yet available because of “technical challenges”. The portal will apparently be ready this summer, and the RCMP has said it will publicize it when it comes online. 

Continue reading
Posted in Canada, Crimes against humanity, Gaza, Genocide, International Criminal Court (ICC), Israel, Palestine, RCMP Structural Investigation, Universal Jurisdiction, War crimes, West Bank | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Courts in Conversation: The International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and their mutual and respective roles in Addressing International Crimes

The following essay examines the relationship between the ICJ and the ICC, at a time when both courts have increasingly found themselves seized of the same situations of mass atrocity crimes, including in Gaza, Myanmar, Ukraine and Afghanistan. It was published as part of PKI Global Justice Journal’s Special Issue on Human Rights and the International Court of Justice — Challenges and Opportunities, which also features insights from human rights and global justice scholars, including Michael Lynk, Ardi Imseis, Heidi Matthews, Bill Schabas, Faisal Bhabha, Payam Akkavan, Sara Seck and Penelope Simons, Christopher Campbell-Duruflé, as well as the organizers of the Special Issue, Alex Neve and Sharry Aiken. The volume is open access, and focuses on, inter alia, the following questions: Is the International Court of Justice becoming, in some fashion, a human rights court? If so, what does that mean? What are the strengths and weaknesses of viewing the ICJ as a human rights court? What are the challenges it faces in playing such a role? Are there opportunities to take that further? What of the relationship between the ICJ and the ICC? As Neve and Aiken write: “The time for examining these questions is both opportune and pressing.”

(Photo and image: Mark Kersten)

Introduction

In recent years, several wars and mass atrocity events have come under the scrutiny of not just one international court, but two. Situations like Russia’s war in Ukraine, Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and occupation of Palestinian territories, atrocities against the Rohingya people of Myanmar, as well as the Taliban’s persecution of women and girls, have fallen under the purview of both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ). Observers of international law are accustomed to these Hague-based institutions being confused for each other in media portrayals. This confusion is unlikely to abate given the increasing overlaps between the atrocity events that have come under each court’s jurisdiction.

Few have attempted to articulate the consequences of this new dynamic or the relative strengths and weaknesses of each institution as venues to address the perpetration of international crimes, let alone their potential to work constructively and together to deliver a proverbial one-two punch of accountability for mass atrocities. With both institutions coming under increasing strain and with each susceptible to wider attacks on whatever remains of a rules-based order, such an assessment seems timely and is therefore the focus of this essay.

Continue reading
Posted in Burma/Myanmar, Gaza, ICC Prosecutor, International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, International Law, Israel, Myanmar, Palestine, Palestine and the ICC, Rohingya, Russia, Ukraine | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

There must be consequences: Accountability for war crimes can help stop attacks on hospitals

Dr Suleiman Qaoud at the Rantisi Specialist Hospital after Israeli attacks on the facility on 6 November 2023 (Photo: Abdelhakim Abu Riash/Al Jazeera)

The doctors assumed that a well-marked hospital would be safe, especially since the warring parties in the region were informed of its existence and its life-saving operations. But they were wrong, and the attacks came in waves. When it was over, the hospital walls were charred, the windows were shattered, and its roof had collapsed. Two dozen patients were killed, and many more were injured. The facility, its staff and the patients inside of the hospital were supposed to be protected from attack. At least that’s what international humanitarian law – the rules that govern conduct in war – says. But on that day, law offered no protection and those responsible for its violation escaped accountability. 

The above is not a summary of recent attacks on hospitals in GazaUkraineSudanIran, or Israel – though readers could be excused for assuming otherwise. It’s what happened in the early hours of 3 October 2015, when an American gunship attacked Kunduz hospital, in Afghanistan, run by Médecins Sans Frontières. The official U.S. military response to its bombing of the hospital was that the attack was a “mistake”. No justice followed. Instead, the events led to the “Not A Target” campaign, aimed at ending attacks on hospitals. As important as it is, that campaign has not worked. In recent years, attacks on medical facilities – by Russia, Israel, Sudanese armed forces, and Iran – have become an almost daily occurrence. That the wounded, sick, and disabled, as well as newborn babies, are increasingly the targets of deadly, indiscriminate attacks demands more than rhetorical condemnation. It demands accountability.

The list of hospitals and medical facilities attacked by in Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, Israel, and Iran is disturbingly long. An accounting of each attack is beyond the scope of this article, but the numbers are staggering. In Gaza alone, it is estimated that 94% of hospitals have been damaged or destroyed by the almost 1,900 attacks waged by Israeli forces on health-care facilities.

Each attack has been met with similar shock and anger victims from victims, humanitarians, and human rights activists. Recently, the residents of Beersheeba, Israel, where Iranian missiles struck the Soroka hospital, were dismayed – and rightfully so. One doctor at the hospital said: “I never thought something like this could happen. Never.” Following military strikes on the al-Mujlad Hospital, which straddles the front lines between the Rapid Support Forces and Sudanese Armed Forces, World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus exclaimed: “We cannot say this louder: attacks on health must stop everywhere!”  

Continue reading
Posted in Gaza, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, International Humanitarian Law, Iran, Palestine, Palestine and the ICC, Russia, Sudan, Ukraine, War crimes | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

The Dynamics and Moral ambiguities of Perpetration: Exploring the Intersection of Individual Agency and Structural Factors in Atrocity Crimes

The following article, by Dr. Mina Rauschenbach, is part of JiC’s ongoing symposium on Alette Smeulers’ new book “Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities Terribly and Terrifyingly Normal?”. Mina is Research Fellow at the Leuven Institute of Criminology (KU Leuven), an independent consultant, and a certified mediator.

A Survivors, Victims and Perpetrators Exhibit at the United Nations headquarters in New York (Photo: UN)

Since the publication of Alette Smeuler’s book, the debates surrounding what constitutes criminal, immoral actions or moral ones within an entrenched conflict leading to mass atrocities are taking on a new salience in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing global context. In today’s significantly fragmented geopolitical landscape, the normative legitimacy of international human rights law and principles is increasingly undermined. Impunity for atrocity crimes continues unabated around the world, with the number of conflicts at a post-World War II high. 

Even internationally recognised actors within the multilateral and NGO system are delegitimised in their moral authority to promote respect for international norms and to urge states to act in this regard. International norms also face unprecedented challenges amidst the global spread of political and social polarisation, which has reduced the space for traditional human rights advocacy and encouraged human rights violations.

In this troubled and volatile context, the main questions at the heart of this book – how can ordinary law-abiding citizens be involved as perpetrators in collective violence and can anyone become a perpetrator – take on full meaning. This publication offers a broad view of perpetration across a detailed typology of 14 categories which can be used as an analytical lens to better understand collective violence and its dynamics, its nuances and complexities. These typologies comprehensively demonstrate how different trajectories of perpetration result from the interplay of dispositional characteristics, individual life experiences, contextual factors related to an individual’s socio-political and structural environment, and perceived choices. Each type of perpetrator is characterised by a unique, or most salient, feature, driving force, motive and circumstance which contributed to their particular path and role in the commission of mass atrocities.

Continue reading
Posted in International Criminal Justice, Symposium Introduction - A JiC Symposium on Alette Smeulers'  "Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities Terribly and Terrifyingly Normal? | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment