Milan Markovic

If my theory is correct, he would not show up to testify.

The ICJ, unlike the ICC, isn't a criminal court and doesn't issue arrest warrants (it adjudicates disputes between states). I would not bet on the ICC prosecuting Hegseth, but he would also be wise to avoid international travel for the rest of his life.

Does it even get that far? I would love nothing more than televised testimony, but why would he comply with a subpoena?

There will be a war with Venezuela soon that they will love.

The game plan is presumably to scapegoat Bradley and then offer him a pardon if he keeps quiet.

Jeffries says not to expect Democrats to pursue Hegseth impeachment over boat strikes "Republicans will never allow articles of impeachment to be brought to the floor," he said.

If crimes against humanity are not an impeachable offense, what’s the point? www.axios.com/2025/12/01/j...

I know it’s hard to believe—it is for me, too—but they did this because they *wanted* to.

Senator Kelly has been fantastic.

parks Y @parkersity_9 Without naming your job, tell me something you say 20 times per day at work

“That sounds illegal”

The Secretary of War Crimes just keeps tweeting through it. What a boon to future prosecutors!

Friends, I clerked for the ICC way back when. Starting a🧵 to clear up misconceptions on @bsky.app. 1) The ICC can exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a state party (including registered vessels). The US does not need to join the ICC for the Court to have jurisdiction. BUT

Strong floor, no ceiling has basically been the approach since the mid-2000s, with the government backstopping oligarchs' risky investments while claiming little of their upside.

By Anne-Marie Slaughter.

Kelly's welcome emergence has obscured that Schumer has been AWOL since the shutdown.

Senator Kelly is correct.

Plus a Public Service Announcement:

KEY section of Department of Defense's Law of War Manual is 18.3.2.1.

The VERY rule on the "requirement" to refuse illegal orders gives as its paradigmatic example of what is "clearly illegal:
"orders to fire upon the shipwrecked."

Strong language from @markey.senate.gov.

A good thread on the ICC, its jurisdiction, and how it interacts with state parties from @profmarkovic.bsky.social, who has substantial experience in that area:

Bipartisan Majorities Oppose US Disengaging from UN Agencies, New UMD Survey Finds /PRNewswire/ -- President Trump has issued executive orders to "reevaluate our commitment" to United Nations (UN) agencies, withdraw from the World Health...

5. Most question the efficacy of the agreements, but both Republican and Democratic administrations have been hostile to the idea of the ICC indicting US nationals. Could that change in the face of unpopular pardons? Who knows. But Americans' attitudes towards the ICC are surprisingly favorable. Fin

4) All state parties are legally obligated to comply with ICC arrest warrants (although there have been notable instances where a few have not). The US was sufficiently concerned about ICC prosecutions that it pushed countries to sign so-called Article 98 agreements that would preclude cooperation.

3) A state can forestall a ICC investigation by meaningfully investigating war crimes purportedly committed by its nationals--states as well as defendants can also challenge admissibility on this basis. The Court isn't interested in displacing domestic mechanisms except where they break down.

2) The process of starting a formal investigation is laborious and usually requires a referral by a state party. The ICC is a "court of last resort"--it cannot and does not consider any and all war crimes. It also tends to steer away from politically charged situations. But see Israel.

Friends, I clerked for the ICC way back when. Starting a🧵 to clear up misconceptions on @bsky.app. 1) The ICC can exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a state party (including registered vessels). The US does not need to join the ICC for the Court to have jurisdiction. BUT

"Surely a quick, violent, successful war of aggression is just what the ruler needs to shore up his legitimacy," said just about every failed monarch in history shortly before invading Serbia.

One thing I am certain of is that Hegseth will not be traveling to Europe and South America in 2029. You can probably add Canada to that list as well.

Look, every single “deal” reached by a university with the Trump administration is a moral stain that will be seen with deep embarrassment once we’re through this. But for Northwestern to do this now, when the administration is visibly weakened, is even more shameful and inexcusable.

Goldsmith mused during the DOJ's investigation of John Yoo that the Office of Legal Counsel's role was to tell the President what he could get away with.

Imagine if the full video leaks?

62% of Americans would support joining the ICC according to a recent poll. More generally, I am dubious that Americans would turn on a Democratic administration for cooperating with a ICC investigation of someone that Trump pardoned for war crimes (although the Hague Invasion Act is a barrier).

Northwestern and Columbia being famous for journalism and bending over for Trump seems a little too on the nose these days

Litigation is generally how institutions enforce contractual commitments and violations of their rights. Did the Board ever consider it? The interim president's comments suggest that they did not.