The Erosion of Sovereignty: Why Federal Violence Demands International Accountability
The recent fatal shootings of peaceful protesters—most notably Alex Pretti and Renee Good—by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis have sent shockwaves through the American legal system. While domestic authorities grapple with the limits of federal immunity and the “supremacy” of national enforcement, these tragedies expose a terrifying reality: when a state’s own enforcement apparatus operates beyond the reach of local law, the crime ceases to be merely domestic. These acts should be reclassified as international crimes, falling under the jurisdiction of the United Nations (UN) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). To protect global human rights, the international community must empower the ICC to bridge the “impunity gap” created when powerful nations shield their agents from justice.
The Failure of Domestic Recourse
In the United States, the legal doctrine of “qualified immunity” and federal supremacy often create a vacuum of accountability. In the cases of Pretti and Good, state investigators have faced significant hurdles, with federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reportedly blocking access to evidence and crime scenes. When a domestic government possesses the exclusive power to investigate its own agents—and uses that power to obstruct transparency—the “right to a remedy” guaranteed by international law is effectively nullified.
Reclassifying Systematic Violence
Under the Rome Statute, “crimes against humanity” are defined as specific acts—including murder and persecution—committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. While single shootings are often dismissed as isolated domestic incidents, the current climate suggests a broader pattern:
- Systematic Policy: The deployment of masked federal agents and the use of lethal fInternationalizing Federal Violence Accountabilityorce against non-threatening civilians (such as Pretti, who held only a cellphone) reflect an aggressive, centralized policy of intimidation.
- Targeted Populations: These actions frequently target specific groups—immigrants, activists, and those dissenting against state policy—meeting the criteria for “persecution against an identifiable group.”
When domestic crimes are part of a state-sanctioned pattern of violence, they transcend national borders. They become an affront to the “conscience of humanity,” the very threshold that triggers international jurisdiction.
The Case for ICC Jurisdiction
The primary obstacle to international justice is the principle of complementarity. CurrentlyInternationalizing Federal Violence Accountability, the ICC only intervenes when a state is “unwilling or uInternationalizing Federal Violence Accountabilitynable” to prosecute. However, the definition of “unable” must be expanded. If a nation’s legal framework is designed to provide blanket immunity to its agents, that nation is functionally “unable” to provide justice.
| Entity | Current | Proposed |
| United Nations | Limited to non-binding resolutions and “special rapporteur” reports. | Ability to mandate independent forensic investigations that domestic agencies cannot block. |
| ICC | Cannot easily prosecute citizens of non-member states (like the U.S.) for domestic crimes. | Universal jurisdiction over “crimes against humanity” regardless of treaty status when domestic courts fail. |
Strengthening the World Court
The ICC is often criticized as a “toothless” tiger, hampered by the fact that the world’s most powerful nations have not ratified the Rome Statute. To prevent the world from becoming a patchwork of “black sites” where state agents can kill with impunity, the UN Internationalizing Federal Violence AccountabilitySecurity Council’s power to refer cases must be insulated from the vetoes of the very countries being investigated.
Treating these shootings as international crimes is not an attack on national sovereignty; it is a defense of the individual against the absolute power of the state. If a government will not protect its people from its own police, the world must.