The New York grand jury’s indictment of former US president Donald Trump for bookkeeping crimes relating to hush money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels follows the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for the war crime of deporting children from Ukraine. These cases highlight the law’s growing, and potentially dangerous, dominion in politics — domestic and international.
Both events are groundbreaking. Trump’s indictment is the first for any president in US history. Similarly, international courts have issued only a handful of arrest warrants for heads of state, and never for the leader of a major power.
These legal actions are likely to set important precedents and could have enormous consequences, even if neither one results in a criminal conviction. The question is whether the precedents will be happy ones, and whether the consequences will be positive on balance.
Since the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, the goal of international criminal law has been to institutionalize legal accountability for wartime activities. Most international criminal tribunals have been under the thumb of the UN Security Council, which meant that they could not be used against that body’s five permanent veto-wielding members: China, France, Russia, the UK and the US.
However, the ICC, by design, is not beholden to the UN. Although Russia never consented to its jurisdiction, Ukraine has, and the ICC is proceeding on that basis.
The arrest warrant holds out the hope that Putin will be “held accountable” for his crimes against Ukrainian children, and perhaps for the many other crimes he has directed in Ukraine, ICC prosecutor Karim Khan has said.
Moreover, even if Putin never ends up in the dock in The Hague, the ICC said that the arrest warrant could “contribute to the prevention of the further commission of crimes” in Ukraine.
Harold Koh, sterling professor of international law at Yale Law School and former US Department of State legal adviser, says that it might also delegitimize, isolate and weaken Putin, thereby reducing his bargaining power.
Yet, as Koh’s former state department colleague, International Crisis Group chief of policy Stephen Pomper says, the arrest warrant could have serious “negative effects.”
Pomper says that the move could make Putin even more dangerous and destructive, impede any peace process and prevent multilateral cooperation with Russia on collateral issues such as humanitarian assistance in Syria and Afghanistan.
It could also harm the legitimacy of the ICC itself, especially if the warrant splits international support for the court, or if countries refuse to meet their legal obligation to arrest and transfer Putin to The Hague if given the chance.
Analogous tradeoffs bedevil the Trump prosecution. Trump deserves to go to jail if he contravened New York criminal law. The fact that he is a former president is irrelevant, and the conviction of such a powerful figure would be a special vindication of the rule of law. The indictment might also, as New York Times national political correspondent Alexander Burns says, harm Trump politically by driving home to the marginal voter Trump’s sleaziness and unfitness for office.
Yet it could also have the opposite effect. New York County District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg’s case is widely regarded as weak, including by a respected lawyer who previously worked on it himself. Due to this weakness, and in light of Bragg’s connections to Democratic Party politics, Republicans are largely likely to view the indictment as politically motivated, and have already managed to pick a political fight with Bragg.
The short-term politics of Bragg’s indictment, and of Trump’s angry responses, are hard to assess, but the episode seems likely to negatively affect federal Special Counsel Jack Smith’s more serious and credible investigations into Trump. Smith has a powerful case, especially when it comes to Trump’s possession of US government documents — including many highly classified ones — at his Mar-a-Lago home.
However, the expected indictment in the federal case wold invariably be controversial, because it would be coming from the US Department of Justice under US President Joe Biden’s administration after Trump has already announced his presidential candidacy for 2024. Following the New York indictment, Smith’s efforts would face the additional challenge of looking like a prosecutorial pile-on.
One might think that concerns about the practical consequences of prosecuting Putin and Trump are irrelevant. Both men have committed very bad acts, after all, and the rule of law demands that they be punished. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum — let justice be done, though the heavens fall.
However, this is an unrealistic view of criminal law operation in high-stakes domestic and international politics.
If the ICC arrest warrant leads to more death and suffering than would otherwise occur, the court and the broader project of international criminal law will be discredited. Likewise, if the New York indictment empowers Trump — and especially if it is seen as setting off a chain of events that leads to his re-election, or to destabilizing tit-for-tat retaliations down the road — it will come to be seen by many Americans as a tragic error.
One cannot know now if these things will happen, or will be seen in this way, but if so, justice obviously will not have been done.
Jack Goldsmith is a professor of law at Harvard Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS