If international law is so sacrosanct, what has been done to arrest Putin for invading Ukraine? How many Russian government officials have been indicted and/or prosecuted?
How many Hamas and UNRWA cadres have been arrested and prosecuted for October 7 attack?
International law cannot be invoked and applied selectively. Being a weak system of law or positive international morality, it is just an academic exercise to analyse actions of states.
Hi! I agree that international law can’t and shouldn’t be invoked and applied selectively. Understanding where and how it has been violated in all instances is the first step in that direction 👍🏽 Thanks for reading! Yusra
Stating what the actual law is in a current situation -like it has repeatedly been done in the others that you mention- is not an academic exercise, but the essential practice of international lawyers. Violators choose violate it.
On the contrary. Putin has an arrest warrant of the ICC, the EU and many other countries have many sanctions against Russia, Putin and other oligarcs. In what parallell world do you live? Second, I.L has done nothing to stop the genocide Israel is committing in Palestine, despite many Advisory Opinions, and formal legal measures, I.L lacks enforcement of those. Hamas? Let's solve the Hamas and "terrorism" issue by Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories, granting the right to return, the recognition of the State of Palestine and allowing Palestine to have a Government, Rule of Law and an army to defend themselves and make their soldiers accountable of IHRL and Humanitarian Law violations.
Firstly, there is no finding or decision of the ICJ holding Israel liable for genocide. Secondly, Advisory Opinions are not judgments and cannot be enforced. Thirdly, October 7 attacks were genocidal because the essential ingredient, namely, dolus specialis (special intent) was apparent when a religious group (Jews) were singled out and killed. The Israeli action was aimed at a proscribed terror group. Fourthly, the essential attributes of statehood for recognition of Palestine are absent. There is no definite territory and no single government - the West Bank is controlled by PA and Gaza by a terror group. Also whether a terror group can fulfil obligations under international law is anybody's guess. And how many states, apart from a handful would be willing to engage with Hamas! Even SA rejected Palestinians entering their country after extending support to their cause.
First, I didn't say there was an ICJ decision. But you know what there is? Many UN Reports. That doesn't count for you? Secondly, you are very wrong. A.O. of the ICJ looks for violations of Jus Cogens principles. The A.O. are not binding, but the jus cogens principles violated ARE binding. YOU HAVE TO COMPLY. Thirdly, no. The "terrorist" attack is not an act of genocide. First, it is not systematic; there is no systematic war against jews. Although the material element of the crime of genocide doesn't require it to be systematic, in practice, this is the case and is also very important for the mental element. There is a war against a Non-State Actor and a State, not against a religious group. The description of the punishable conduct is to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. There is no mental element or intent of the conduct, because they didn't kill them with the intent to kill jews, a religious group. The intent to destroy embodies the systematic element of the conduct. Whatever happened on October 7 could only be a War Crime. Fourth, please tell me what those essential attributes of statehood are that you cannot see, because I'm watching rn the Montevideo Convention and I see that Palestine meets those requirements. What can you not see? There is a Government, there are international relations, and they have a special seat at the UN. Why are you so blind? Fifth, Gaza is not controlled by a terror group; terror groups do not exist under International Law, my friend. Hamas, as a political party, has an armed wing. Hamas, as a political party, won an election and has the right to govern Gaza. IN THE WEST BANK GOVERNS THE OPPOSITION PARTY TO HAMAS: FATAH. I don't like Hamas because it is a conservative Islamist party, but it's up to Palestinians to vote for them or not. Let's allow them to have free elections, and Israel to withdraw from the occupied territory, granting Palestinians the right to return. So then, they can have a State, rule of Law, elections and an army to defend themselves and that can be accountable for war crimes before the ICC.
Interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine have become increasingly spread-out, often presented as settled international law while confusing the political interests that have enabled intervention by Global North powers against weaker states. Western silence historically reflected strategic priorities of control rather than a commitment to justice.
Recent U.S. actions under the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere can be understood as a continuation of the Roosevelt Corollary, which asserted a U.S. right to intervene in Latin American states accused of “chronic wrongdoing.” This framework institutionalized interventionism and reinforced asymmetric power relations.
Your article offers a balanced and academically grounded analysis of the Monroe Doctrine as an evolving instrument of power rather than a neutral legal principle. It also situates this doctrine within today’s geopolitical context, marked by EU limitations as a supranational actor, the UK’s alignment with U.S. hegemony, and growing Western frustration over unilateral trade policies and tariff wars. Yusra, You hit the nail on the head.
Quick question about the ICC jurisdiction: since Venezuela is a state party to the Rome Statute and the violation happened on its territory by American hands, shouldn’t there be some sort of jurisdiction? In the situation of Palestine, the violations are occurring on the territory of a state party in the wyes of the ICC (Palestine) but the court still has jurisdiction and it issues arrest warrants against Israeli officials when Israel is not a state party. Could you elaborate what is the difference here in this case?
Hi Nourhan! There's jurisdiction for war crimes based on your reasoning, but not for the crime of aggression which needs both the aggressor state and the victim state to be ICC parties. More on war crimes in Venezuela in my next post! :)
I don't agree with your views. Be that as it may, Genocide is distinct from other crimes in as much as it embodies a special intent or dolus specialis. Special intent of a crime is the specific intention required as a constitutive element of the crime which demands that the perpetrator clearly seeks to produce the act charged. Thus, the special intent in the crime of genocide lies in the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national ethnical racial or religious group as such.
In concrete terms for any of the acts charged under article 2(2) of the Statute to be a constitutive element of genocide the act must have been committed against one or several individuals because such individual or individuals were members of a specific group and specifically because they belonged to this group that is the victim is chosen not because of his individual identity but rather on account of his membership of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The victim of the act is therefore a member of a group, chosen as such, which, hence, means that the victim of the crime of genocide is the group itself and not only the individual. Clearly Hamas' attack was genocidal. Hamas had declared in its 1988 Charter of destroying the Jewish state and Jews. This intent and the act of October 7 is proof enough for holding the group guilty of genocide. It is irrelevant if Hamas has won an election or not; the fact is it is a proscribed terror group which had proudly claimed to have carried out a genocidal act.
Your statement - "There is no mental element or intent of the conduct, because they didn't kill them with the intent to kill jews, a religious group. The intent to destroy embodies the systematic element of the conduct." This is undiluted rubbish and anti-semitic!!
Insofar as attributes of statehood are concerned, the territory under alleged control is not unified - (Hamas is in illegal control of Gaza while PA controls some part of the West Bank because the effective control is in Israeli hands).
The Fatah-Hamas split hinders unified governance, a key requirement for full statehood. Somaliland possesses all attributes of statehood for the last 34 years and yet has not been recognised by the bulk of the international community. The factum of recognition is no longer governed by law, but only on political considerations. Your comments are fuelled by blind hatred for Jews and Israel and needs to be condemned.
Nicolás Maduro is the legitimate president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, which is much much more than a "regime," a cult or an "authoritarian autocracy." It's a popular and social movement/revolution/process. If the U.S. thinks that kidnapping a president he will stop the revolution, he will need to kill the millions revolutionaries in Venezuela and Latinoamerica. There are many Venezuelans in the streets protesting the kidnapping of their president, and he has to be free and back. Not only international law, but domestic U.S. prohibits what Trump did. If the U.S. has still some respect for the rule of Law in their proto-apartheid country, they will free president Maduro.
If international law is so sacrosanct, what has been done to arrest Putin for invading Ukraine? How many Russian government officials have been indicted and/or prosecuted?
How many Hamas and UNRWA cadres have been arrested and prosecuted for October 7 attack?
International law cannot be invoked and applied selectively. Being a weak system of law or positive international morality, it is just an academic exercise to analyse actions of states.
Hi! I agree that international law can’t and shouldn’t be invoked and applied selectively. Understanding where and how it has been violated in all instances is the first step in that direction 👍🏽 Thanks for reading! Yusra
Stating what the actual law is in a current situation -like it has repeatedly been done in the others that you mention- is not an academic exercise, but the essential practice of international lawyers. Violators choose violate it.
On the contrary. Putin has an arrest warrant of the ICC, the EU and many other countries have many sanctions against Russia, Putin and other oligarcs. In what parallell world do you live? Second, I.L has done nothing to stop the genocide Israel is committing in Palestine, despite many Advisory Opinions, and formal legal measures, I.L lacks enforcement of those. Hamas? Let's solve the Hamas and "terrorism" issue by Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories, granting the right to return, the recognition of the State of Palestine and allowing Palestine to have a Government, Rule of Law and an army to defend themselves and make their soldiers accountable of IHRL and Humanitarian Law violations.
Firstly, there is no finding or decision of the ICJ holding Israel liable for genocide. Secondly, Advisory Opinions are not judgments and cannot be enforced. Thirdly, October 7 attacks were genocidal because the essential ingredient, namely, dolus specialis (special intent) was apparent when a religious group (Jews) were singled out and killed. The Israeli action was aimed at a proscribed terror group. Fourthly, the essential attributes of statehood for recognition of Palestine are absent. There is no definite territory and no single government - the West Bank is controlled by PA and Gaza by a terror group. Also whether a terror group can fulfil obligations under international law is anybody's guess. And how many states, apart from a handful would be willing to engage with Hamas! Even SA rejected Palestinians entering their country after extending support to their cause.
First, I didn't say there was an ICJ decision. But you know what there is? Many UN Reports. That doesn't count for you? Secondly, you are very wrong. A.O. of the ICJ looks for violations of Jus Cogens principles. The A.O. are not binding, but the jus cogens principles violated ARE binding. YOU HAVE TO COMPLY. Thirdly, no. The "terrorist" attack is not an act of genocide. First, it is not systematic; there is no systematic war against jews. Although the material element of the crime of genocide doesn't require it to be systematic, in practice, this is the case and is also very important for the mental element. There is a war against a Non-State Actor and a State, not against a religious group. The description of the punishable conduct is to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. There is no mental element or intent of the conduct, because they didn't kill them with the intent to kill jews, a religious group. The intent to destroy embodies the systematic element of the conduct. Whatever happened on October 7 could only be a War Crime. Fourth, please tell me what those essential attributes of statehood are that you cannot see, because I'm watching rn the Montevideo Convention and I see that Palestine meets those requirements. What can you not see? There is a Government, there are international relations, and they have a special seat at the UN. Why are you so blind? Fifth, Gaza is not controlled by a terror group; terror groups do not exist under International Law, my friend. Hamas, as a political party, has an armed wing. Hamas, as a political party, won an election and has the right to govern Gaza. IN THE WEST BANK GOVERNS THE OPPOSITION PARTY TO HAMAS: FATAH. I don't like Hamas because it is a conservative Islamist party, but it's up to Palestinians to vote for them or not. Let's allow them to have free elections, and Israel to withdraw from the occupied territory, granting Palestinians the right to return. So then, they can have a State, rule of Law, elections and an army to defend themselves and that can be accountable for war crimes before the ICC.
Interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine have become increasingly spread-out, often presented as settled international law while confusing the political interests that have enabled intervention by Global North powers against weaker states. Western silence historically reflected strategic priorities of control rather than a commitment to justice.
Recent U.S. actions under the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere can be understood as a continuation of the Roosevelt Corollary, which asserted a U.S. right to intervene in Latin American states accused of “chronic wrongdoing.” This framework institutionalized interventionism and reinforced asymmetric power relations.
Your article offers a balanced and academically grounded analysis of the Monroe Doctrine as an evolving instrument of power rather than a neutral legal principle. It also situates this doctrine within today’s geopolitical context, marked by EU limitations as a supranational actor, the UK’s alignment with U.S. hegemony, and growing Western frustration over unilateral trade policies and tariff wars. Yusra, You hit the nail on the head.
Thank you so much for this comment, Hailu! :)
You well-come, SAIL.
Quick question about the ICC jurisdiction: since Venezuela is a state party to the Rome Statute and the violation happened on its territory by American hands, shouldn’t there be some sort of jurisdiction? In the situation of Palestine, the violations are occurring on the territory of a state party in the wyes of the ICC (Palestine) but the court still has jurisdiction and it issues arrest warrants against Israeli officials when Israel is not a state party. Could you elaborate what is the difference here in this case?
Hi Nourhan! There's jurisdiction for war crimes based on your reasoning, but not for the crime of aggression which needs both the aggressor state and the victim state to be ICC parties. More on war crimes in Venezuela in my next post! :)
I don't agree with your views. Be that as it may, Genocide is distinct from other crimes in as much as it embodies a special intent or dolus specialis. Special intent of a crime is the specific intention required as a constitutive element of the crime which demands that the perpetrator clearly seeks to produce the act charged. Thus, the special intent in the crime of genocide lies in the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national ethnical racial or religious group as such.
In concrete terms for any of the acts charged under article 2(2) of the Statute to be a constitutive element of genocide the act must have been committed against one or several individuals because such individual or individuals were members of a specific group and specifically because they belonged to this group that is the victim is chosen not because of his individual identity but rather on account of his membership of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The victim of the act is therefore a member of a group, chosen as such, which, hence, means that the victim of the crime of genocide is the group itself and not only the individual. Clearly Hamas' attack was genocidal. Hamas had declared in its 1988 Charter of destroying the Jewish state and Jews. This intent and the act of October 7 is proof enough for holding the group guilty of genocide. It is irrelevant if Hamas has won an election or not; the fact is it is a proscribed terror group which had proudly claimed to have carried out a genocidal act.
Your statement - "There is no mental element or intent of the conduct, because they didn't kill them with the intent to kill jews, a religious group. The intent to destroy embodies the systematic element of the conduct." This is undiluted rubbish and anti-semitic!!
Insofar as attributes of statehood are concerned, the territory under alleged control is not unified - (Hamas is in illegal control of Gaza while PA controls some part of the West Bank because the effective control is in Israeli hands).
The Fatah-Hamas split hinders unified governance, a key requirement for full statehood. Somaliland possesses all attributes of statehood for the last 34 years and yet has not been recognised by the bulk of the international community. The factum of recognition is no longer governed by law, but only on political considerations. Your comments are fuelled by blind hatred for Jews and Israel and needs to be condemned.
Nicolás Maduro is the legitimate president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, which is much much more than a "regime," a cult or an "authoritarian autocracy." It's a popular and social movement/revolution/process. If the U.S. thinks that kidnapping a president he will stop the revolution, he will need to kill the millions revolutionaries in Venezuela and Latinoamerica. There are many Venezuelans in the streets protesting the kidnapping of their president, and he has to be free and back. Not only international law, but domestic U.S. prohibits what Trump did. If the U.S. has still some respect for the rule of Law in their proto-apartheid country, they will free president Maduro.