I’m curious about something. The “legal” alternative to the U.S.’s capture of Maduro would have been to let the ICC do its job. But if the ICC had been investigating the Maduro government for several years and nothing had yet come of it, do you think the ICC alternative would truly have been the better option?
While obviously acknowledging the blatant contravention of international law involved in his capture, I suppose my question is whether the inevitable delay in securing justice through the ICC would have been worth it.
But that "blatant contravention of international law" did great violence to the international rule of law, weakening the prohibition on the use of force in particular, and eroding confidence in the entire international legal order. And for what? The regime that committed the crimes against humanity is still in place, and the predicament of the Venezuelan people remains unchanged. Maduro has a very good chance of avoiding prosecution in US courts due to head of state immunity, and if US courts circumvent that, then the incident will have served to undermine international legal principles in yet another way.
Violations of international law can only be said to be "worth it" in the very rare circumstance that the violation actually does less harm to the international legal order than the circumstances that triggered the violation. A humanitarian intervention to prevent a genocide in progress might meet that standard, but few other situations come to mind. The aggression against Venezuela and kidnapping of its head of state certainly does not.
Interesting times for the ICC! It’s the best court for bringing accountability to individuals who have committed crimes against innocent people and communities, and the countries who are still members have an opportunity to make it even better, to protect their own futures
Don’t know if it’s the best court — it’s designed to be secondary to domestic courts which can and should be doing a lot of work to prosecute for international crimes. But it’s certainly the best we have, and countries should definitely work to improve and strengthen it 👍🏽
I’m curious about something. The “legal” alternative to the U.S.’s capture of Maduro would have been to let the ICC do its job. But if the ICC had been investigating the Maduro government for several years and nothing had yet come of it, do you think the ICC alternative would truly have been the better option?
While obviously acknowledging the blatant contravention of international law involved in his capture, I suppose my question is whether the inevitable delay in securing justice through the ICC would have been worth it.
To me the legal option is always the better option, irrespective of its flaws!
This thread prompted me to post an old essay with a new introduction on this very question! https://craigxmartin.substack.com/p/when-is-it-worth-it-to-violate-international?r=1cx54i
Fantastic, can’t wait to read this! Thanks Craig!
But that "blatant contravention of international law" did great violence to the international rule of law, weakening the prohibition on the use of force in particular, and eroding confidence in the entire international legal order. And for what? The regime that committed the crimes against humanity is still in place, and the predicament of the Venezuelan people remains unchanged. Maduro has a very good chance of avoiding prosecution in US courts due to head of state immunity, and if US courts circumvent that, then the incident will have served to undermine international legal principles in yet another way.
Violations of international law can only be said to be "worth it" in the very rare circumstance that the violation actually does less harm to the international legal order than the circumstances that triggered the violation. A humanitarian intervention to prevent a genocide in progress might meet that standard, but few other situations come to mind. The aggression against Venezuela and kidnapping of its head of state certainly does not.
100%!
Interesting times for the ICC! It’s the best court for bringing accountability to individuals who have committed crimes against innocent people and communities, and the countries who are still members have an opportunity to make it even better, to protect their own futures
Don’t know if it’s the best court — it’s designed to be secondary to domestic courts which can and should be doing a lot of work to prosecute for international crimes. But it’s certainly the best we have, and countries should definitely work to improve and strengthen it 👍🏽