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 attacks on Venezuela and Iran, 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 | 8 Comments

Violating international law to get rid of dictators is alluring but wrong – and dangerous

Posted on January 3, 2026 by Mark Kersten
Scenes in Caracas following American strikes in the Venezuelan capital

There is an alluring idea that anything – including illegal action – should be taken to protect people from dictators. It is that reasoning that some are tapping into to insist that American military strikes on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro are welcome. Legal or not, the man responsible for countless atrocities in Venezuela is gone. Similar thinking has been applied to ousting the Iranian leadership, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While no one should sympathize with the likes of Maduro or Khamenei, both of whom are cruel perpetrators of atrocities, this view is indefensible. It is legally and morally wrong. More than that, it is dangerous.

Given U.S. President Donald Trump’s open disdain for the Iraq War – he called it a “big, fat mistake” that won’t be repeated – the parallels between American action in Venezuela to that of Iraq in 2003 are staggering. Back then, the Republican administration of George W. Bush lied by claiming that weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq to justify a military intervention. Claiming it was engaging in “pre-emptive self-defence”, Washington proceeded despite a lack of approval by the United Nations Security Council. At the time, many well-intentioned people believed that Iraqi dictator Sadaam Hussein, who had previously gassed thousands of civilians in Kurdistan to death, needed to be removed, regardless of whether international law permitted it or not.

What ensued wasn’t just the removal and execution of Hussein, but an illegal war, a bungled occupation marred by human rights abuses and war crimes, and a decision to mass-relieve the Iraqi military which later birthed the Islamic State terrorist group. Meanwhile, the cost of the war in dollars reached trillions. Its cost in death and destruction was even greater. America’s reputation has never recovered. Today, no respected international lawyer would claim the invasion of Iraq was legal or wise.

Continue reading →
Posted in International Law, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, United Nations, United States, Venezuela, War crimes | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

After the Trial Ends: Why Residual Mechanisms Deserve Our Attention

Posted on December 22, 2025 by Mark Kersten

The following is a guest-post on the afterlife of international criminal tribunals, written by Maria Elander, Rachel Killean and Mark Drumbl. Maria is an Associate Professor and the Associate Dean, Research and Industry Engagement in the La Trobe Law School. Rachel is a Senior Lecturer and the Associate Dean (Student Life) at the University of Sydney School of Law. Mark is the Class of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University.

Judges at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon study a model crime scene from the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri (Photo: United Nations)

When the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) closed its doors in 2023, the tribunal faced a stark problem: without money to maintain its servers or staff, its entire digital presence — with thousands of sensitive legal records, including audiovisual materials, transcripts, and filings — was at risk of disappearing. With its website scheduled for shutdown and no residual mechanism to safeguard its archives, the STL’s evidentiary and historical record hung in the balance.

Stanford University’s Virtual Tribunals initiative stepped in. It worked with the STL to urgently preserve and transfer more than 15,000 files into the Stanford Digital Repository. This task was completed earlier this year. The rescue ensured storage and continued public access to materials that might otherwise have been lost.

Yet the solution raises questions: After the closure of a temporary court, how should sensitive documents like legal records be managed? Where, and by whom? These are not just administrative determinations but deeply political questions that relate to the roles of affected communities and national stakeholders in the justice process.

How to manage the archive also ties into a larger question: What happens when atrocity tribunals end? Over the last year or so, we have been exploring this question, separately and together. Following our recent experience of presenting these ideas at the International Association of Genocide Scholars’ annual conference, we are hoping to assemble a group of scholars to explore these issues further, and will be publishing a call for papers in the new year. Here, we set out some of our current musings, in the hope that it might spark thoughts in others.

Continue reading →
Posted in Central African Republic (CAR), Chambres Africaines Extraordinaires (CAE), Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), Guest Posts, International Criminal Justice, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Kosovo Relocated Specialist Judicial Institution (KRSJI), Kosovo Specialist Chambers, Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Special Court for Sierra Leone, Special Court for SIerra Leone (SCSL), Special Criminal Court, Special Tribunal for Lebanon | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

More of the same, or changes on the way? For the first time in a decade, the Canadian War Crimes Program sheds light on what it has been up to.

Posted on December 18, 2025 by Mark Kersten
People in Gaza flee ongoing violence (Photo: Reuters)

Atrocities in Sudan, Gaza, and Ukraine raise a question: do people in countries far away, like Canada, have a role in addressing the suffering of others?

While these conflicts can appear remote, affecting only distant strangers, the horrors they produce increase the chances that not only victims, but also perpetrators, seek to enter Canada. It’s unsurprising, then, that Canadian authorities are busier than ever in identifying suspected perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Yet Canada continues to deport perpetrators without any guarantee that they’ll be subsequently held accountable. Ottawa needs to put its money where its mouth is and use its courts to prosecute alleged war criminals.

The last report of Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program  was released a decade ago. Back then, authorities suspected that some 200 perpetrators of international crimes resided in Canada. Ottawa’s goal was to prevent the entry or to deport suspects without any guarantee that they’d be subsequently prosecuted for their alleged crimes. Believing that trials were too expensive, the government was explicit: prosecuting perpetrators in Canadian courts under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act was a last resort.

For the first time since 2016, we have a snapshot into what the War Crimes Program is doing, thanks to written questions submitted to the government by Conservative Member of Parliament Pierre Paul-Hus. The answers tell an important story.

Continue reading →
Posted in Ahmed Eldidi, Canada, Canadian War Crimes Program, Gaza, Hamas, International Criminal Justice, Islamic State, Israel, Palestine, RCMP Structural Investigation, Structural Investigation, Ukraine, Universal Jurisdiction, War crimes | Tagged | 5 Comments