|
This major CARICOM forum on reparations follows the adoption of the landmark United Nations Resolution A/RES/80/250 on 25 March 2026, which declared the trafficking and racialised chattel enslavement of Africans as “the gravest crime against humanity. |
|
CARICOM Secretariat | Turkeyen, Greater Georgetown, Guyana | Wednesday, 2 September 2026: The CARICOM Reparations Commission (CRC), Government of Barbados and the CARICOM Secretariat will host the Third CARICOM Regional Conference on Reparations under the theme “Reparatory Justice as the Coming Enlightenment” from 17-19 September 2026. The three-day activity will take place at the Wyndham Grand Sam Lord’s Castle, Saint Philip, Barbados. This major CARICOM forum on reparations follows the adoption of the landmark United Nations Resolution A/RES/80/250 on 25 March 2026, which declared the trafficking and racialised chattel enslavement of Africans as “the gravest crime against humanity.” Focus In addition, the Conference will strengthen collaboration among CARICOM, the African Union, civil society, and the global African diaspora. It aims to invigorate political, diplomatic, and community participation in the regional and international movement for reparatory justice, ensuring that the momentum for change is sustained and broadened. Expected Outcomes Participants The Conference will bring together CARICOM Ministers responsible for reparatory justice, National Reparations Commissions and Committees, Associate Members and the United Nations. Global reparations activists from the USA, Canada, UK, EU, and Latin America will also participate, alongside scholars, civil-society leaders, cultural figures, and youth delegates. Further details and registration are available on the official Conference website. Editor’s Notes The First CARICOM Regional Conference on Reparations was hosted by St. Vincent and the Grenadines in September 2013, marking the launch of the CARICOM Reparations Commission. That event featured the drafting of the Commission’s Terms of Reference and a major opening ceremony headlined by the late Hon. Bunny Wailer, OJ, who was received as patron of the regional reparations movement. The Second CARICOM Regional Conference on Reparations was held in Antigua and Barbuda in September 2014, presenting a series of expert panels on a wide range of issues in the reparations discourse, aligned with the CARICOM Ten-Point Plan for Reparatory Justice. The Most Hon. PJ Patterson delivered the keynote address at the opening and contributed to the discussions alongside other regional and international experts. The Commission has also organised several important symposia and conferences since 2014. These included “Western Banking, Colonialism and Reparations” held in Antigua and Barbuda in October 2019; the virtual symposium “Sir William Arthur Lewis: Founder of Reparations for Caribbean Development” in June 2020; and the CRC Tenth Anniversary Symposium “Reparations and Royalty, Africa and Europe: Exploding Myths and Empowering Truths” held in Jamaica in March 2023. Helpful Links: Third CARICOM Regional Conference on Reparations Revised CARICOM Ten-Point Plan for Reparatory Justice: A Manifesto for the Coming Enlightenment For media queries, please contact: |
FORMER OFAC SANCTIONS INVESTIGATOR DANIEL KLINGENBERG JOINS BERLINER CORCORAN & ROWE AS COUNSEL
PRESS RELEASE
FORMER OFAC SANCTIONS INVESTIGATOR DANIEL KLINGENBERG
JOINS BERLINER CORCORAN & ROWE AS COUNSEL
Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP (“BCR”) is pleased to announce that Daniel Klingenberg has joined the firm’s Washington, D.C. office as Counsel in its Sanctions and Export Controls practice. Daniel joins BCR following his service at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), where he was the first investigator in OFAC’s newly established delisting office and played a central role in establishing the Reconsideration Portal for delisting petitions.
Mr. Klingenberg brings substantial government-side sanctions experience from OFAC’s Enforcement and Global Targeting divisions. At OFAC, he investigated apparent violations of U.S. sanctions regulations by domestic and foreign companies, individuals, and financial-sector entities, and re-investigated delisting petitions involving individuals, entities, and property listed on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”) and other sanctions lists administered by OFAC. His experience strengthens BCR’s ability to help clients navigate sanctions compliance, enforcement risk, liability exposure, and delisting strategies.
Before joining OFAC, Daniel was a Fulbright Research Fellow focused on rule-of-law reform in Albania, with particular attention to the role of cross-cultural communication in legal and political reform. He also served as a government affairs advisor with APCO Worldwide in Washington, D.C. and Dubai, a public relations firm, advising clients on legal issues and advocacy matters in the Middle East and the United States. His work included managing litigation exposure, supporting compliance with complex U.S. and international regulations, and advising senior executives on U.S. and international political issues.
Mr. Klingenberg earned his J.D. from Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law in 2017 and received a certificate from Georgetown University Law Center’s Center for Transnational Legal Studies. He earned his B.S. in Finance and International Studies from Indiana University while playing NCAA Division I tennis at Indiana University Indianapolis, formerly IUPUI.
Daniel is a member of the New York Bar. Daniel is not yet admitted to the District of Columbia Bar and practices at BCR under the supervision of lawyers licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. Daniel’s practice before U.S. Government agencies is authorized by Rule 49(c)(2) of the Rules of the D.C. Court of Appeals, and his practice in the District of Columbia is limited to providing the types of legal services authorized in Rule 49(c)(2).
Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP is a boutique law firm focused on international law; trade, export controls, and sanctions; white collar criminal defense and complex federal litigation; and national security law. With offices in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, the firm represents an international client base ranging from foreign governments and multinational corporations to emerging companies, nonprofits, and individuals.
Contact Daniel Klingenberg at: dak@bcrlaw.com
1101 17th St., N.W., Ste. 1100, Washington, D.C. 20036
Comparative Study on Anti-Corruption law in Switzerland, the U.K., France and the U.S.
A book recently published is co-authored by Paul Gully-Hart and Valerie de Saint-Pierre on the fight against corruption.
The title of the book is : “Lutte contre la corruption : enjeux et perspectives comparées (Suisse, Royaume-Uni, France, États-Unis).” Translated this is the Fight against corruption: comparative issues and perspectives (Swiss, UK, French, and U.S.) This book, just published in French, by the Swiss Editeurs Schulthess, runs 517 pages. It is the result of extensive professional experience in white collar crime law, combined with an analysis on national anti-corruption strategies in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, France and the United States.
The authors explain that more than twenty years have elapsed since the enactment of key conventions, namely the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Anti-Bribery Convention) and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).
In its first part, the book provides a global overview of the institutional and legal framework of the global fight against corruption. The second part offers a critical assessment of the domestic anti-corruption strategies in place the four countries mentioned above. Finally, the third part explores several key developments from the perspective of practitioners. These include: the use of alternative dispute resolutions; the coordinated settlement of criminal investigations conducted in multiple jurisdictions ; the increasing role of companies and compliance in the fight against corruption ; the performance of internal investigations ; the use of economic sanctions in fighting corruption; the role of lawyers, bribery issues in the context of international arbitration and setbacks in victims compensation.
The book will be of interest for practitioners, policy makers, and academicians.
Epstein’s Case: Why INTERPOL Never Issued a Red Notice
Konstantina Zivla[1]
Between 2008 and 2019, despite Epstein’s transcontinental travel via private jet to Paris, the Caribbean, and the Middle East, no Red Notice was ever issued.[2] Public discourse surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s decades of international mobility has long been dominated by conspiracy theories, suggesting that intelligence agencies across the globe conspired to protect a convicted sex offender from justice. Although these narratives capture the public imagination, they often obscure a far more banal reality. A forensic audit of Department of Justice (“DOJ”) records[3] reveals that Epstein’s “immunity” was not the product of a coordinated silence by powerful actors, but rather the result of a self-inflicted systemic void. This void was created by a singular legal instrument: the 2008 Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”).[4] This Agreement extinguished the legal basis needed for international law-enforcement cooperation (and therefore, INTERPOL’s involvement).
To grasp the magnitude of this failure, one must first dismantle the misconception surrounding INTERPOL and its Red Notice system. Contrary to popular belief, INTERPOL is not a supranational police force possessing independent investigative or coercive powers.[5] It holds no authority to compel sovereign states to investigate, arrest, or prosecute individuals within their own borders. Its mandate is strictly coordinative, serving merely as a secure communication hub for the 196 member countries’ National Central Bureaus (“NCBs”). Each NCB has the authority to request that the INTERPOL General Secretariat issue a Red Notice.
The Red Notice is the cornerstone of international fugitive apprehension.[6] Although it is considered an “international instrument”, its issuance requires a domestic legal foundation, typically: (a) an active arrest warrant; (b) a pending criminal prosecution ; (c) a conviction where the individual is still at large.[7] Absent these conditions, INTERPOL cannot independently initiate proceedings. Its Notices’ system is triggered only by valid domestic judicial orders.[8]
Consequently, the inquiry into why Epstein evaded capture does not begin with a question of whether the NCB of the US or INTERPOL itself failed to act, but rather with whether the requisite legal conditions for its activation ever existed.
The pivot point of this inquiry is the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPO”) itself.[9] The 2008 NPA between the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein terminated all federal prosecutorial activity regarding conduct that had previously attracted significant scrutiny from the FBI (e.g. conspiracy, interstate enticement, child sex trafficking, etc.).[10] Although Epstein pleaded guilty to state-level solicitation charges, the federal case was legally extinguished.[11] Therefore, under U.S. Federal Law, Epstein ceased to be a fugitive from Federal Justice. He became a convicted offender fulfilling a state-mandated sentence. Because the DOJ closed its federal file, there was no active warrant and no open investigation to serve as the predicate for a Red Notice request. In essence, the United States could not trigger the Red Notice mechanism because, de jure, the federal government held no outstanding claim against Epstein.
Yet this limitation extends beyond Red Notices alone. Would Epstein’s Tier III SORNA listing generate international awareness? The answer is no – absent a Green Notice, such data remained domestically contained due to the absence of an automatic bridge between state registries and INTERPOL. A Green Notice an international alert used by law enforcement to warn other countries about a person’s criminal activities It is used when an individual is suspected of committing crimes across multiple borders and is seen as a possible threat to public safety. Though his high-risk classification could theoretically trigger a Green Notice, none has been verified. And crucially, under Article 89(1) of the RPD, even a valid Green Notice serves only to warn member states, enabling (and not obliging) screening or entry denial.[12]
These findings dismantle the “shadow mastermind” theory. What emerged instead was a “Swiss cheese” enforcement framework: structural holes in jurisdiction created “immunity” at the federal level. The 2008 NPA closed the federal avenue and extinguished the Red Notice trigger. What Epstein’s trajectory proves is that when federal/national power is voluntarily withdrawn, international mechanisms, such as INTERPOL, simply have nothing to seize onto. This supports the conclusion that INTERPOL’s role is strictly cooperative, never obligatory. Its notices function not as binding mandates on states, but merely as alerts, leaving the ultimate decision regarding enforcement entirely within the discretion of each sovereign jurisdiction.
[1] Konstantina Zivla is an International Criminal Lawyer, specialised in INTERPOL law and procedures, cross-border data protection, and procedural fairness in international police cooperation.
[2] CNN, “Epstein’s island: Inside the Caribbean fiefdom where he wooed the wealthy and abused girls”, 13 March 2026, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/13/us/jeffrey-epstein-little-st-james-island-invs-vis (Accessed 24 June 2026).
[3] DOJ Disclosures https://www.justice.gov/epstein/doj-disclosures.
[4] Original NPA Document (Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184602-Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement.
[5] INTERPOL, “Who We Are”, https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/What-is-INTERPOL.
[6] INTERPOL, “About Notices”, https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/About-Notices.
[7] Under Art. 83 of the INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data (“RPD”).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Original NPA Document (Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184602-Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement.
[10] Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.).
[11] OPR Full Epstein Report, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26440221-opr-full-epstein-report/.
[12] More about Green Notices, at INTERPOL’s website https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/About-Notices.
The War Crimes Research Office at American University Washington College of Law Marks Its 30th Anniversary
In celebration of 30 years at the forefront of international justice, the War Crimes Research Office (WCRO) at American University Washington College of Law (AUWCL) hosted a two-day symposium on April 21-22, 2026. The global gathering brought together leading experts in international criminal law in a series of dynamic programs and panels, through both in-person and online formats.
To learn more, please find a short note about the event at the following link:
Recordings of these panels will continue to be made publicly available in the upcoming days.
Upcoming ABACLE Webinar: Extrajudicial Killings: Understanding and Responding Through Law
March 25, 2026 | 12:00-1:15 pm Eastern Time
An ABACLE webinar co-sponsored by the International Criminal Law Committee.
General CLE Credit Hours: 1.25
For more information and to register, click here. Free for ABA members.
Extrajudicial killings are a crime that is often under-discussed among practitioners and scholars, even though it has become a crime that is being repeatedly perpetrated in various contexts around the world. This session will discuss the contours of extrajudicial killing within the US legal system and how attorneys can find avenues to assist with litigating cases. The session will also explore the ongoing situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran and how extrajudicial killing can mutate and take new forms through
different processes.
Moderator:
Danielle Gardner, International Criminal Law Committee, International Law Section.
Speakers:
• William Joseph Aceves, Chief Justice Roger Traynor Professor of Law, California Western School of Law.
• Leila Tarighi, Legal Expert and Researcher, Iran Human Rights.
Scholarships to defray tuition expense for ABACLE programs are available upon application on a program by-program, case-by-case basis. Preference will be given to public interest lawyers, government lawyers, full-time law professors, solo or small firm practitioners of limited means, and unemployed attorneys. Scholarship applications must be received at least two (2) weeks before the program start date. You will be notified prior to the program if your application is approved. A minimum fee may be charged on all approved scholarship applications to defray expenses. For programs with tuition costs over $500, qualifying attorneys will receive at least a 50% reduction in the course fee(s). Visit the program website for more information.
Interpol Red Notices: An Anatomy of Power
By Konstantina Zivla[1]
I. Introduction
Interpol is widely perceived by the public and the media as an international police force with powers to investigate, arrest, and pursue individuals across borders.[2] This perception is inaccurate. Interpol does not conduct investigations, does not determine guilt or innocence, and does not possess arrest powers. Put simply, Interpol is neither a “Global Police” in the traditional sense nor a “Court” that issues Red Notices against “guilty people.” Nevertheless, despite this formally limited mandate, Interpol plays a decisive role in international criminal cooperation. Its mechanisms, particularly Red Notices and diffusions, can trigger arrests, restrict liberty, and severely affect the personal, professional, and economic lives of the individuals concerned.
Interpol’s power lies not in enforcement, but in coordination. By facilitating the circulation of requests between National Central Bureaus (“NCBs”) and maintaining a global database of wanted persons, Interpol acts as a multiplier for national criminal proceedings. A single decision by the Interpol General Secretariat to issue a Red Notice may result in immediate arrest in one jurisdiction, travel bans in another, and prolonged uncertainty in a third. As such, Interpol’s procedures raise profound questions concerning legality, proportionality, discretion, and the protection of fundamental rights.
This article examines the legal framework governing the publication of Interpol Red Notices, focusing on the minimum criteria for publication and the General Secretariat’s discretion. Particular attention is given to Section 2 of Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data (“RPD”),[3] which form the legal backbone of the Red Notice system.
II. Interpol’s Role in the Apprehension of Wanted Persons
Interpol fulfils two principal functions in relation to wanted individuals. First, it maintains a centralized database containing information on persons sought by its member countries. Second, it serves as a conduit for communication between NCBs, particularly when urgent action, including provisional arrest, is sought.
Although Interpol does not investigate or arrest individuals directly, its actions have tangible and often immediate effects on personal liberty. The transmission of information between NCBs can result in an arrest at a border checkpoint. Inclusion in Interpol’s databases can lead to travel restrictions, visa refusals, banking disruptions, reputational damage, and professional exclusion. These consequences arise even before any judicial scrutiny takes place in the state where the individual is located. It is precisely because of these significant effects that Interpol’s internal procedures, safeguards, and review mechanisms merit close legal scrutiny.
III. Red Notices: Definition and Purpose
Contrary to public belief, a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant.[4] It is an alert issued by Interpol’s General Secretariat at the request of an NCB of one of the 196 Interpol member countries. Its purpose is to seek the location of a wanted person and to request their detention, arrest, or restriction of movement for the purposes of extradition, surrender, or similar lawful action (Αrt. 82 of the RPD).[5]
However, these objectives do not create a legal obligation for the remaining 195 Interpol member countries to arrest the individual concerned. The legal effect of a Red Notice depends entirely on domestic law. While some states treat Red Notices as a sufficient basis for provisional arrest, others require prior judicial authorization or additional national procedures. In practice, however, Red Notices frequently operate as de facto arrest triggers, particularly in jurisdictions that apply automatic or semi-automatic enforcement mechanisms.
IV. Minimum Criteria for Red Notice’s Publication: Article 83(1) RPD
a) Serious Ordinary-Law Crime
The first and most fundamental requirement is that the offense concerned qualifies as a “serious ordinary-law crime.” This concept is not expressly defined in Article 83 of the RPD.[6] Nonetheless, Interpol has historically limited its activities to ordinary criminal matters to preserve its neutrality and comply with Article 3 of its Constitution, which prohibits involvement in political, military, religious, or racial matters.[7]
Article 83(1)(a)(i) of the RPD explicitly excludes certain categories of offenses from eligibility for Red Notices. These include offenses that raise controversial issues relating to: (a) behavioral or cultural norms, (b) offenses relating to family or private matters, and (c) offenses of an administrative nature or arising from private disputes, unless they are linked to serious crime or organized criminal activity.
The first category covers offenses such as prostitution, surrogacy-related conduct, pornography offenses not linked to serious crime, personal drug use, and offenses affecting honor. The second category concerns offenses such as adultery, abortion, euthanasia, child support and alimony disputes, and certain parental child-abduction cases involving conflicting custody decisions. The third category encompasses offenses of an administrative nature or arising from private disputes, such as traffic and licensing violations, labour-law infringements, defamation, unfunded checks, and regulatory or financial breaches lacking personal gain, corruption, fraud, or serious harm.[8] Although this non-exhaustive list provides guidance, it does not constrain the Secretariat’s discretion in individual cases.
b) Penalty Thresholds
The second criterion relates to the seriousness of the penalty attached to the offense. Where a person is sought for prosecution, the conduct must be punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least two years or a more serious penalty. Where a person is sought to serve a sentence, the individual must have been sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment, or at least six months of the sentence must remain to be served.[9]
These thresholds are intended to ensure proportionality and to prevent the misuse of Interpol mechanisms for minor or trivial offenses. However, as discussed below, compliance with these thresholds does not automatically preclude the exercise of discretion in exceptional cases.
c) Interest in International Police Cooperation
The third criterion is broadly formulated: the request must be “of interest for the purposes of international police cooperation.”[10] This requirement is inherently flexible and grants the General Secretariat considerable latitude. Almost any cross-border criminal allegation can arguably be framed as engaging international police cooperation, particularly in an era of global mobility and transnational financial activity. This criterion establishes a general eligibility requirement that serves as a broad baseline filter and is ordinarily satisfied when a request involves cross-border elements or the potential involvement of more than one jurisdiction. In practice, it sets a low threshold and serves primarily to confirm that Interpol’s involvement is justified ratione materiae.
d) Discretion of the Interpol General Secretariat
Moving forward to Paragraph (b) of Article 83, the RPD grants an exceptional discretionary power to the General Secretariat. Particularly, it allows the Secretariat to authorize publication of a Red Notice even where the core substantive criteria in (i) (serious ordinary-law crime) and/or (ii) (penalty thresholds) are not met, provided that, following consultation with the requesting National Central Bureau or international entity, the General Secretariat considers the notice to be of particular importance to international police cooperation. Unlike criterion (iii), which operates as a routine condition of admissibility, paragraph (b) explicitly permits departure from otherwise mandatory legal thresholds on the basis of perceived operational importance.
The notion of what constitutes a matter of “particular importance” to international police cooperation is not specified in the Rules, nor in any Decisions of the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (“CCF”). It is instead deliberately framed in broad and open-ended terms, allowing the General Secretariat to address situations that could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the Rules’ adoption.
Taken cumulatively, this drafting choice confers upon the General Secretariat an exceptionally wide margin of discretion. While a degree of discretion is inherent in administrative decision-making, discretion of such breadth risks undermining legal certainty and foreseeability, which lie at the very core of the right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, within the normative framework in which the Organization pursues its objectives under Article 2(1) of its Constitution.[11]
V. Minimum Data Requirements: Article 83(2) RPD
In addition to substantive criteria, Article 83(2) of the RPD imposes strict requirements concerning the information that must accompany a Red Notice request. Except for the Identification Data, the requesting NCB must provide a clear and succinct summary of the facts, detailing the alleged criminal conduct, time, and location. The request must specify the charges, the applicable legal provisions, the maximum possible penalty or sentence, and reference a valid arrest warrant or judicial decision having the same effect.
VI. Legal Review by the General Secretariat
Before publication, all Red Notices are subject to a legal review by the Interpol General Secretariat. Article 86 of the RPD emphasizes that this review must ensure compliance with Interpol’s Constitution, particularly Articles 2 and 3. However, the Rules provide little transparency into how this review operates in practice.
First, the concept of a “legal review” is left open to interpretation. The RPD do not specify their scope, content, or methodology, nor do they clarify whether the assessment involves a substantive examination of the underlying facts or is limited to the requesting State’s allegations.
Second, the provision is further silent on the requirements of reason-giving and traceability. It neither obliges the General Secretariat to articulate the legal reasoning of its assessment nor to retain a record capable of meaningful ex post review by the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files. As a result, the review process remains opaque, reducing the obligation to conduct a legal review to a largely formalistic exercise.
VII. Final Remarks
Interpol Red Notices are not arrest warrants, nor are they issued under the same conditions as domestic arrest orders. They operate within Interpol’s own legal framework and are governed by specific provisions and criteria. Article 83 of the RPD establishes minimum safeguards while conferring a broad margin of discretion on the Interpol General Secretariat. This is not to imply that all Red Notices are issued unlawfully. This is to suggest that the flexibility of the rules creates uncertainty about whether all Red Notices are issued lawfully. The long-documented misuse of Interpol’s Red Notice system for political purposes provides concrete support to this concern.[12]
[1] Konstantina Zivla is an International Lawyer and Associate Member at Guernica 37 Chambers (London) specializing in Interpol Notices and cross-border criminal enforcement.
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/interpol-arrests-3700-suspects-global-trafficking-crackdown-129560370.
[3] Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data (“RPD”) govern all data processing in the INTERPOL Information System, including that surrounding the issuance of all colour-coded Notices. The provisions specific to Red Notices can be found in Section 2. Available at: https://www.interpol.int/en/content/download/5694/file/26%20E%20RulesProcessingData_RPD.pdf/
[4] INTERPOL, View and Search Public Red Notices for Wanted Persons, https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices/View-Red-Notices (Accessed 3 February 2026).
[5] Article 82 of the RPD: “Red notices are published at the request of a National Central Bureau or an international entity with powers of investigation and prosecution in criminal matters in order to seek the location of a wanted person and his/her detention, arrest or restriction of movement for the purpose of extradition, surrender, or similar lawful action.”.
[6] Article 83(1)(a)(i) of the RPD.
[7] Article 3 of Interpol’s Constitution: “ It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character”.
[8] INTERPOL, List of specific offences for which Red Notices may not be issued, https://share.google/zDms2IqxB3VKLCO5w (Accessed 10 January 2026).
[9] Article 83(1)(a)(ii) of the RPD.
[10] Article 83(1)(a)(iii) of the RPD.
[11] Article 2(1) of Interpol’s Constitution: “[Interpol’s] aims are: (1) To ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”).
[12] European Parliament, Misuse of Interpol’s Red Notices and impact on human rights – recent developments, January 2019, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/603472/EXPO_STU(2019)603472_EN.pdf (Accessed February 8, 2026); Ted R. Bromund, How the Abuse of Interpol Contributes to Transnational Repression, 14 July 2025, https://newlinesinstitute.org/intl-law-peace/how-the-abuse-of-interpol-contributes-to-transnational-repression/ (Accessed February 9, 2026).
Developments of the Ibero-American Institute of the Hague for Peace, Human Rights and International Justice (IIH)
Hector Olasolo (hectorolasolo@gmail.com) of the Ibero-American Institute of The Hague for Peace, Human Rights and International Justice (IIH) has provided information in relation to the new publications co-published by the IIH that are available in open access, as well as in relation to the activities that will be developed in the 2026-I Semester.
Regarding the publications, volumes 42, 49, 51, 52 and 53 of the Ibero-American Perspectives on Justice Collection (co-published by the Tirant lo Blanch publishing house, the IIH & the Joaquín Herrera Flores Institute) are available at the following link for free download since last month: https://editorial.tirant.com/es/colecciones/perspectivas-iberoamericanas-sobre-la-justicia. These volumes correspond to the following titles, and have been prepared to a large extent by the members of the Research Network on Ibero-American Perspectives on Justice (see: https://www.iberoamericaninstituteofthehague.org/formacion-e-investigacion/red-de-investigacion):
-Volume 42: “Responses to corruption from Criminal Procedural Law. Special attention to Corruption Associated with Transnational Organized Crime. Part III. The investigation actions“.
-Volume 49: “The International Legal Clinic. Pedagogical approach and research. Special Volume for the XV Anniversary of the International Legal Clinic (2011-2025)”.
-Volumen 51: “The trilogy on therole of the International Criminal Court from non-positivist perspectives. PartI. Analytical approaches that adopt modernity and its subjectivities” (eninglés).
-Volumen 52: “The trilogy on therole of the International Criminal Court from non-positivist perspectives. PartII. Theoretical perspectives that denounce modernity and its subjectivities:approaches from disciplinary analytical frameworks coming from philosophy,theology, international law and international relations” (en inglés).
-Volumen 53: “The trilogy on therole of the International Criminal Court from non-positivist perspectives. PartIII. Analytical perspectivesthat denounce modernity and its subjectivities: critical studies and subalternhistorical-contextual approaches as interdisciplinary axes of analysis” (en inglés).
These 5 volumes, as well as the rest of the volumes of the Collection, are open access, so that they can be shared with those who consider that they may be interested in them. It will also be presented at the X Seminar on Ibero-American Thought on International Justice that will take place on May 29 and June 4 and 5, 2026 at the University of The Hague for Applied Sciences (the preliminary program can be consulted at the following link: https://www.iberoamericaninstituteofthehague.org/actividades/semana-iberoamericana-de-la-justicia-internacional-y-los-derechos-humanos).
In addition, it is expected that throughout the month of February 2026, volumes 43 to 48 of the Collection that make up the “Elements of Analysis and Reflection on the Phenomenon of Corruption associated with Transnational Organized Crime” will also be available in open access. These volumes have also been translated into English and will be published as volumes 55 to 59 of the Collection during the 2026-I Semester.
In this way, after the 27 thematic works on the subject published between 2024 and 2025 (all of them available in open access as volumes 16 to 42 of the aforementioned Ibero-American Perspectives on Justice Collection), volumes 43 to 48articulate the main conclusions reached by the members of the 13 research groups of the Network on “Responses to Corruption associated with Transnational Organized Crime (criminology, Dynamics of adaptation of maritime drug trafficking and the port city, constitutional and electoral law, administrative law, disciplinary law in the justice and security sectors, financial and tax law and international legal cooperation in tax matters, private law, international legal cooperation in civil matters, intervention in illicit markets and arbitration of investment treaties, criminal law, criminal procedural law, international legal cooperation in matters criminal law, international criminal law, international human rights law, and foreign policy and international organizations). See on the composition of the Network: https://www.iberoamericaninstituteofthehague.org/formacion-e-investigacion/red-de-investigacion-respuestas-a-la-corrupcion-asociada-al-crimen-transnacional-organizado/contenido-y-compoicion-de-la-red-de-investigacion-respuestas-a-la-corrupcion-asociada-al-cot).
In addition to the above, volume 5 of the bilingual series International Law Clinic Reports and volume 13 (2025) of the Ibero-American Yearbook of International Criminal Law (ANIDIP) have been published in 2025. Both are available in open access at the following links:
–https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/46242
–https://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/anidip/issue/view/589
Throughout the 2026-II semester, articles will be received for peer review for publication in volume 14 (2026) of ANIDIP and volume 6 (2026) of the International Law Clinic Reports will be published, which will include the presentations made during the International Seminar on Reparations to Victimized Children in Armed Conflicts, which took place on May 22, 2025 at the Headquarters of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the occasion of the XX Anniversary of the Office of Public Defence of Victims of the ICC, and the XV Anniversary of the IIH and the International Legal Clinic, developed by both in partnership with the Faculty of Jurisprudence of the Universidad del Rosario (Colombia).
Regarding the activities of the IIH scheduled for the 2026-I Semester, the following activities should be highlighted, in addition to e XIII Ibero-American Week and the X Seminar on Ibero-American Thought mentioned above:
-XIII ICC Competition for Judicial Simulation before the International Criminal Court (Spanish version), whose registration date ends at the end of March 2026, with written briefs to be submitted in mid-April and the preliminary and semifinal hearings taking place in The Hague from June 1 to 3. As in previous years, the Final Hearing will take place in Hearing Room I of the ICC, on Friday, June 5 at 9:30 a.m.https://www.iberoamericaninstituteofthehague.org/actividades/concurso-de-simulacion-judicial-sobre-la-cpi. For more information on the XIII ICC Competition, as well as on the possibility of acting as a jury for memorials or hearings in The Hague, please write to: cpiconcursoiih@gmail.com.
-XI Annual Meeting of the International Legal Clinic with the officials of the Office of Public Defence for Victims of the ICC (scheduled for 26 May 2026).
-XI Annual Meeting of Coordinators of the Ibero-American Perspectives on Justice Research Network.
-VII Annual Meeting of Coordinators of the Investigation Network Responses to Corruption associated with Transnational Organized Crime.
For more information regarding all the activities and publications of the IIH that are not related to the XIII CPI Contest, please write to: iih.certamensayos@gmail.com.
Finally, it is expected that during the first half of 2026, the update of the Model Course in Spanish on International Criminal Law and the International Criminal Court, which since Semester 2025-II has been developed through a joint team of the Office of Public Information and Outreach of the ICC Secretariat and the IIH, can be completed: https://www.icc-cpi.int/get-involved/derecho-internacional-penal.
2025 Retrospective
By Bruce Zagaris
We at the IELR send you best wishes for the new year. 2025 was momentous for the international enforcement community, and we are grateful to have had you following along with our coverage during our 40th year of discussing international enforcement developments.
We are grateful for the continuing long partnership with Professor Michael Plachta and contributions from practitioners and professors, including Aljohrh Al Abdulsalam, Ore Adedeji, the Basel Institute on Governance (Monica Guy and Kateryna Boguslavska), Dr. Ted Bromund, Lucy Carroll, Dan Fisher-Owens, Christina Gotsis, Frederick T. Davis, Jason Gottlieb, Sandra Grossman, Emily Hong, Paul Gully-Hart, Aiymgul Kachyke, Dimitris Konstantopoulos, Rodrigo Labardini, Marco Stewart Lopez, Charlie Magri, Luz E. Nagle, Konstantinos Magliveras, Jason McClurg, Gino Naldi, Yuriy L. Nemets, Simran Pandey, Michelle Roberts, Adriana Sanford, Katherine Scher, Luiz Fabricio Vergueiro, Alienor Vogeleer, and Konstantina Zivla. Since April 2024, Austin Wahl, a second-year law student at Washington College of Law, American Univ., has produced the IELR. Since May, Chloe Fontenelle has served as assistant editor.
We are also grateful for our partnerships with LexisNexis, WestLaw, EBSCO, and William Hein & Co. in distributing the IELR.
The following is a highlight of some of the articles we covered. In many cases, there are overlapping categories into which the articles fall, so we had to choose in which category to discuss the articles.
The Recovery and Return of Stolen Cultural Property
Fontenelle discussed a NYC judge’s ruling that an art institute must restitute Nazi-looted artwork to the heirs. Zagaris wrote about Argentina’s charges against the daughter of a Nazi officer relating to her concealment of a stolen painting. Carroll covered a stolen Egyptian artifact, returned by the Dutch government.
Money Laundering, Bank Secrecy, and Entity Transparency
The Basel Institute highlighted the gradual improvement in national AML systems as part of the results of the 13th public edition of the Basel AML Index. Zagaris covered the series of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act and FinCEN’s decision not to enforce beneficial ownership information reporting for United States (U.S.) persons and domestic entities. Zagaris discussed the Canadian government’s intelligence sharing on the laundering of fentanyl trafficking, as well as FinCEN’s designation of the Cambodia-based Huione Group as a primary money laundering concern. Kachyke wrote about new guides on international cooperation in AML/CFT: promise and limits.
Atrocity Crimes, Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes
Plachta discussed the United Nations’ (U.N.) adoption of a resolution on further work on the Convention on Crimes against Humanity. Zagaris wrote about Israeli soldiers facing criminal investigations abroad. Tinubu covered the violence against journalists in the Israel-Gaza war. Plachta covered the decision of European institutions to establish a special tribunal over aggression against Ukraine, as well as the Council of Europe’s (CoE) adoption of a resolution on the Special Tribunal and Register of Damage for Ukraine. He also reported on the U.N. Commission of Inquiry’s finding that the enforced disappearances committed by Russian authorities amount to crimes against humanity. Tinubu highlighted the sexual violence against children amidst the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Zagaris discussed the U.S. notification of its withdrawal from the International Center to Prosecute Aggression against Ukraine, and the end of its support for the database on accountability for war crimes. Wahl wrote about a Finnish court finding a Russian mercenary guilty of war crimes. Hong covered the alarming accusations of reproductive violence and gender-based atrocity in Gaza against Israel. Zagaris discussed the U.S. indictment of a beekeeper for concealing genocidal participation in Rwanda. Manfield covered the Sudan v. UAE genocide case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Fontenelle wrote about the former member of a Gambian death squad’s conviction for torture in the U.S., as well as a German court’s decision to give a Syrian doctor a life sentence for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Adedeji discussed immigration, genocide, and the ethics of obtaining U.S. citizenship. Plachta covered the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) rules against Russia in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia. Plachta covered U.N. investigators reveal systematic torture and other crimes in Myanmar, as well as the U.N. Commission’s allegations that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Konstantopoulos discussed the French arrest warrant for Bashar al-Assad and the power of in absentia judicial proceedings. Zagaris wrote about a U.S. jury’s awarding of $20 million to three Sudanese refugees against BNP Paribas. Fontenelle discussed Bangladesh’s international crimes tribunal sentences former Prime Minister to death for crimes against humanity.
International Criminal Court
Plachta discussed the International Criminal Court (ICC) Assembly of States Parties’ action on outstanding arrest warrants and how Italy has frustrated the ICC arrest warrant for a Libyan warlord accused of war crimes. He also covered ICC prosecutor requests for arrest warrants for Taliban leaders accused of gender-based crimes. Fontenelle wrote about the ICC’s conviction of a Sudanese militia commander for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Plachta discussed President Trump’s renewed sanctions against the ICC as well as the legal and political ramifications of the arrest of Duterte by the ICC. Plachta covered the ICC Assembly of States Parties’ failure to amend the Rome Statute on aggression. Manfield discussed the ICC warrants for Taliban leaders for crimes against women and LGBTQ individuals. Plachta covered the withdrawal of Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso from the ICC.
Extradition, Its Alternatives, and Human Rights
Zagaris discussed the Bangladesh extradition request for the former P.M. from India, and the Montenegrin extradition of a South Korean crypto entrepreneur to the U.S. Wahl highlighted the exotic use of Samuel Landi and his dream of seasteading to avoid criminal prosecution in Italy, as well as Thailand’s approval of the extradition of an illegal online gambling kingpin. Tinubu covered the extradition by France to the U.S. of a man accused of sexual assault. Vergueiro discussed how the international role of the Federal Attorney General’s Office in Brazil has expanded to assist in the extradition of a Brazilian criminal defendant abroad. Labardini covered Mexico’s transport of twenty-nine Mexican nationals charged with drug-trafficking to the U.S. Zagaris wrote about Romania’s capture of a French fugitive nine months after a deadly prison escape. Hong discussed Germany’s Constitutional Court’s overturning of the extradition of a non-binary citizen to Hungary. Plachta wrote about the U.K. High Court halting extradition to India on human rights grounds. Zagaris discussed a Spanish court’s finding that the former director of UNOPS is extraditable to the U.S. for corruption. Wahl discussed the arrest and extradition of cartel broker and fentanyl kingpin ‘Brother Zhang’ to Cuba.
Economic Integration: The European Union
Plachta discussed Bosnia and Herzegovina’s agreements with Eurojust, Europol, and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on cooperation in criminal matters. Plachta covered Europol’s release of its report on serious and organized crime threat assessment, as well as the EU’s conclusion of its agreement with Brazil to fight organized crime and terrorism. Plachta wrote about the decision by the CJEU on extradition by member states to third countries.
International Asset Forfeiture
Zagaris discussed the sharing by the U.S. of $50m million in forfeited assets with Estonia in exchange for financial enforcement activities, as well as the U.S. agreement to share $52.8 million in forfeited corruption proceeds with Nigeria. Zagaris covered Malysia requesting the extradition of Leissner and the pursuit of asset recovery. Fontenelle discussed Equatorial Guinea’s requests to the ICJ to stop the sale of the confiscated French mansion, as well as the DOJ’s seizure of millions of assets laundered by ransomware operations.
Cybercrime
Wahl covered the FBI’s novel sting operation in a cryptocurrency fraud case. Zagaris reviewed the onset of French prosecutors’ criminal investigations against Binance. Zagaris discussed the freeing of thousands of enslaved online scam workers from Myanmar. Wahl considered the plea by two Estonian nationals to $577 million cryptocurrency fraud, as well as the DOJ’s charging of ten Chinese hackers and others with stealing data and suppressing free speech. Gotsis and Gottlieb discussed the U.S. crypto enforcement overhaul. Konstantopoulos examined the DOJ indictment of the leader of a Russian malware scheme and global ransomware conspiracy, as well as the case of a multinational crypto scammer who faces justice after an international pursuit. Manfield discussed the U.N. Convention on Cybercrime. Wahl covered two OmegaPro executives charged with running a $650 million cybercrime operation. Kachyke discussed the U.S. State Department reward offer for alleged cybercriminals. Fontenelle reviewed a transnational cyberscamming crackdown, as well as a Chinese court’s sentencing of eleven crime syndicate members to death.
INTERPOL
Zivla covered INTERPOL and international parental child abduction. Bromund and Magri discussed Interpol’s updates of rules and guidance and the start of a silver notice. Wahl covered an Interpol-led operation targeting scams in Africa. Manfield discussed China, Interpol Red Notices, and GONGOs– their legal risks and international challenges.
Migration Enforcement
Zagaris wrote about Trump’s executive order on foreign terrorists and migration enforcement, and Latin American governments’ adverse response to the Trump administration’s deportations. Tinubu covered the Trump administration’s transfer of detained immigrants in Guantanamo to Venezuela. Zagaris wrote about the U.S. agreement with El Salvador to accept deportees, as well as U.S. transfers of thirteen Mexican detainees with drug convictions and a former governor to Mexico. Hong covered hostage diplomacy and U.S.-Russia prisoner swaps. Zagaris discussed the U.S. Supreme Court’s order to the Trump administration not to remove aliens under the Alien Enemies Act without due process. Fontenelle covered Lithuania’s landmark migrant smuggling case against Belarus before the ICJ. Manfield discussed domestic immigration raids through an international enforcement lens. Wahl covered the U.S. deportees suing the Ghanaian government over breach of human rights.
International Prisoner Transfers and Swaps
Pandey covered the U.S.-China prisoner swap. Zagaris discussed Venezuela’s release of U.S. prisoners and its agreement to accept Venezuelan deportees from El Salvador. Carroll examined Afghanistan’s release of a U.S. prisoner and what it signals for U.S.-Taliban relations.
Economic Integration: The Council of Europe
Plachta discussed the CoE’s call for comprehensive regulations of mercenaries, private militaries, and security companies, as well as the CoE’s effort to open a new Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. Magliveras wrote about the CoE’s action addressing Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and impunity. Plachta covered the CoE’s adoption of a protocol amending the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, as well as the treaty between the CoE and Ukraine to establish a special tribunal. Plachta wrote about the CoE’s opening for signature of the 3rd additional protocol to the CoE MLAT Convention.
International Tax Enforcement
Zagaris highlighted the issuance by the IRS of “John Does” summonses relating to entities doing business with Trident Trust Group. He covered the cum-ex dividend fraud cases in Denmark, Germany, and the U.S. Zagaris discussed Barrick Mining’s bringing of an ICSID case in a criminal tax dispute with Mali. He also considered a former U.S. defense contractor’s guilty plea in one of the largest U.S. tax evasion prosecutions, as well as Credit Suisse Services AG’s guilty plea to tax crimes concerning its conduct in Singapore. Zagaris covered the OECD report on designing a tax crime investigation manual, as well as the U.S. court’s granting of the government’s motion to compel Apple to give information in a Swiss tax investigation. He also examined U.S. requests for the extradition of prominent Guyanese for tax evasion and gold smuggling. Zagaris wrote about a Danish tax agency’s loss in a cum-ex dividend trial, and their plan to appeal the British court’s ruling. He reviewed UBS’s agreement to pay $985.6 million to settle a criminal tax case, and the U.S. court holding that the FBAR penalty assessment violated taxpayers’ 7th Amendment rights.
Transnational Corruption and Transparency
The settlement of a bribery investigation by McKinsey & Co. in South Africa was covered by Zagaris. He also covered the charges against former Florida Representative Rivera for FARA and money laundering, and the Trump administration’s executive order pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Zagaris wrote about the DOJ issuance of guidelines for FCPA enforcement, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals’ overturn of a trial court acquittal on commercial bribery abroad.
Export Control and Sanctions Enforcement
Zagaris covered Trump’s imposition of tariffs on China after threatening sanctions and tariffs on Canada and Mexico for drug trafficking and other transnational crimes. Tinubu wrote about Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador. Konstantopoulos discussed U.S. sanctions on the ICC as a shift in U.S. foreign policy, as well as how new sanctions against the family of Brazilian Supreme Court Justice signal a diplomatic rift between the Americas’ two most populous nations. Manfield focused on tariffs, emergencies, and the limits of power: a new chapter in IEEPA jurisprudence. Roberts wrote about the OFAC issues, maximum penalty in enforcement against a venture capital firm for Russia sanctions violations. Sanford discussed higher education at the intersection of export control, accessibility, and federal funding. Zagaris covered the U.S. indictment of the Haitian gang leader “Barbecue” for sanctions violations, as well as the U.S. Appellate Court’s affirmation of the decision that Trump’s tariffs are illegal, a case which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on an expedited basis. Roberts, McClurg, and Fisher-Owens discussed the U.S. Department of Commerce BIS’s adoption of the “50 Percent Rule.”
Transnational Repression
Tinubu discussed the abduction in Kenya of Tanzanian and Ugandan opposition leaders. Hong discussed a new report by Freedom House on transnational repression. Scher covered the U.S. sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials for transnational repression acts. Vogeleer discussed the French application against Iran in the ICJ regarding the detention of two French nationals. Labardini, who covered Mexico, is credited with frustrating an Iranian plot to kill an Israeli Ambassador.
Transnational Organized Crime
Zagaris discussed Europol’s disruption of criminal organizations’ smuggling of hazardous salvage cars from the U.S; he also reviewed the U.S. and U.K.’s sanctioning of the head of the Cambodian Prince Group, as the U.S. unseals an indictment. Tinubu covered how Irish and Spanish authorities, with the help of Europol, arrested twelve members of “The Family,” an Irish criminal network. Konstantopoulos discussed how the case of Carlos Martinez reveals the tentacles of corruption, violence, and organized crime in America’s borderlands, as well as how the Rio police raid unveils the complexities of combating multinational gangs and extensive corruption in Brazilian financial institutions. Zagaris wrote about how CARICOM heads prioritize combating transnational organized crime and the strengthening of regional security. Fontenelle covered Ecuador’s extradition of a notorious gang leader to the U.S. Konstantopoulos discussed how the arrest of a fugitive Ecuadorian drug lord in Spain reveals the extent of corruption and organized crime in the small Andean country.
International Environmental Enforcement
Plachta wrote about the Council of Europe’s convention against ecocide. Wahl discussed the Environmental Investigation Agency’s uncovering of a massive illegal mercury trade in gold mining. Konstantopoulos covered the Rio police bust of a major wildlife trafficking network.
Immunity of Heads of State and Diplomatic Premises
Plachta covered the fact that some U.K. politicians hinted at a withdrawal from the ECHR.
Transnational Fraud
Zagaris wrote about IOSCO and the private sector’s work on combating online fraud and platform providers, as well as cooperation between Eurojust and the U.S. to take down global credit card fraud. Konstantopoulos discussed the role of foreign actors in defrauding the federal government.
International Sports Enforcement
Sanford discussed how House v. NCAA and the SCORE Act are reshaping global compliance in college sports, as well as how legal architecture, AI-enabled integrity, and cross-border enforcement converge at FIFA 2026.
International Human Rights Enforcement
Hong wrote about the U.S.’s expanding forced-labor blacklist, and the impact on global trade and human rights enforcement. Mansfield analyzed the rethinking of victim compensation after WhatsApp v NSO Group (re Israeli-based government spyware company). Vogeleer discussed France’s request to Algeria to release a journalist, citing endangerment of freedom of the press.
Human Trafficking
Wahl discussed a German-U.K. Joint Action targeting human smuggling in the English Channel, as well as an ex-Philippine mayor given a life sentence for human trafficking. Zagaris wrote about an EU court’s holding that a Maltese investor citizenship scheme violates EU law. Plachta covered the European Parliament’s amendment to the Europol regulation to effectively combat migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings.
International Narcotics Enforcement
Hong discussed the Mexican authorities’ record fentanyl seizure and implications for U.S.-Mexico relations. Zagaris discussed international cooperation between the U.S., Europol, and other governments to disrupt dark web narcotics operations. Wahl wrote about the U.S.’s charges against the leaders of the Sinaloa cartel faction with narco-terrorism. Zagaris discussed the U.S. bringing the first charge of material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, as well as the criticisms from the Mexican president over the son of El Chapo’s guilty plea. Carroll analyzed the relationship between war and law enforcement, and the legal challenges of the U.S.’s strike against alleged drug traffickers. Konstantopoulos discussed a kingpin’s guilty plea and the critical role of the Sinaloa cartel in modern American foreign policy. Zagaris wrote about how the U.S.-Colombia dispute hinders international narcotics enforcement; he also reviewed a U.N. Security Council meeting over U.S. military strikes on Venezuelan boats and executions. Fontenelle discussed a Bali court’s sentencing of a Ukrainian national to life for his involvement in an illicit drug operation. Labardini wrote about Operation Oyamel and Mexican cartels’ expansion into Europe.
Counter-Terrorism Enforcement
Plachta covered the Europol 2024 Terrorism Situation and Trend Report. Zagaris wrote about the U.K.’s arrest of an alleged animal rights and ecoterrorist on the U.S. FBI’s most-wanted list, as well as the U.S.’s removal of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism at the end of the Biden administration. Plachta discussed the U.N. Secretary-General’s report warning of the undiminished threat and adaptability of ISIL/Da’esh, and the U.N. Security Council’s session on the global threat posed by this terrorist organization.
Illicit Firearms Trafficking
Zagaris wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling against Mexico in a suit against the U.S. gun industry.
Jurisdiction and Immunities
Magliveras discussed the French highest court’s rules on the highly contentious issue of the immunity enjoyed (or not) by serving heads of state and state officials.
Sex Trafficking and Child Pornography
Nagle discussed international joint operations against child sex trafficking resulting in prosecutions and retaliatory lawsuits. Sanford wrote about child protection, AI, and the new architecture of liability on platforms like Meta and Roblox.
Internet Gaming
Zagaris discussed a state attorney general’s pressuring of the U.S. DOJ to crack down on illegal offshore gaming.
Citizen Security
Zagaris wrote about IDB announces $2.5 billion and a rapid response task force for security.
International Evidence Gathering
Davis discussed the High Court of Australia paves the way for the use of “AN0M” evidence – and validates global “outsourcing.
IELR Informational Video, Generated With AI
In connection with the AI-generated podcast introducing the IELR, released last week in honor of over 40 years of the publication, IELR founders Bruce Zagaris and Clemens Kochinke have created the following informational video using AI.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 52
- Next Page »