A conversation with Monica Hakimi of Columbia Law School and Janina Dill of the University of Oxford on crisis facing the international legal order, as exacerbated by the unlawful US-Israeli war against Iran. The conversation begins with the jus ad bellum analysis of the attacks, before turning to explore whether and why the UN Charter system on the use of force is collapsing, and why states have failed to sufficiently defend it. The discussion examines what may emerge to replace the current system, and whether it would satisfy the essential requirements for the rule of law, and what states might do to develop new authority structures and institutions to preserve the most important aspects of the system. Finally, the discussion turns to explore what international lawyers and scholars should be doing in a moment when unlawfulness has given way to open lawlessness. Dill and Hakimi offer complementary but distinct perspectives on the structural causes of the system's fragility, the evolving role of legal scholarship, and the urgent need for states to take ownership of international law through forward-leaning legal positions and new coalitions.

A conversation with Monica Hakimi of Columbia Law School about how best to understand and respond to the current transformation of the international legal order. We explore some of Monica's recent theoretical work on how to better understand the operation of international law, as a necessary step to being able to comprehend both why and how the international legal order is in transformation, and thus how best to recognize the opportunities that may allow us to better respond to the crisis. This leads us into a discussion of practical ways international lawyers, scholars, and jurists might best respond to specific aspects of the crisis, including the weakening of both the jus ad bellum and IHL regimes. A fascinating and necessary conversation!

For links to bios and all materials referenced, check our website at:

https://jibjabpodcast.com

Conversation with Brian Finucane of The International Crisis Group and former legal advisor in the U.S. Dept. of State, on the legality of the US military strikes against alleged drug smugglers in the Southern Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. We discuss whether either self-defense under jus ad bellum, or international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflict, apply to these strikes, and if not, whether there is any possible justification or defense for these killings under either international human rights law or domestic U.S. criminal law. We also discuss possible military intervention in Venezuela, and put the strikes into the broader context of the ongoing assault against the international rule of law.

For links to bios and all materials referenced, check our website at:

https://jibjabpodcast.com

Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School discusses his new book, The National Security Constitution for the 21st Century, which examines the structural and systemic reasons for the dangerously increased strength of the executive branch of government in the U.S., and its implications for American use of force, foreign relations, and international law. We discuss not only the evolution and implications of these systemic failures, but also his recommendations for reform, and the role of lawyers and legal scholars in responding to the problem, and even revisit his own role in government in the context of these issues. Finally, we discuss how a second Trump administration makes the prospect of reform more difficult, and the outlook for international law more fraught - but ultimately we end on an optimistic and even inspiring note.

As always, for links to his biography and all the materials referenced, check our website at:

https://jibjabpodcast.com

Janina Dill of the University of Oxford and Adil Haque of Rutgers Law School return to the podcast to address the question of whether it is possible now, while hostilities are still ongoing, to assess whether some aspects of the IDF's conduct of hostilities may be in violation of IHL. The question is germane because many argue that one cannot assess such violations until all of the evidence is available and has been analyzed, and we discuss why this may not be so. And the focus on the IDF, without delving into the violations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is justified because there is really no debate over the violations and war crimes committed by either of these - but there remains quite robust debate over whether the IDF is acting in compliance with IHL, and the issue is highly relevant now for countries that are supplying Israel with weapons. In the discussion we begin with explanations of the core principles of IHL, namely distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack, as well as the treaty provisions that codify them, and how these are subject to interpretation. We also explore how the concept of intent, as well as the standards of evidence, should be understood differently depending on whether one is assessing collective violations of IHL or trying to prosecute individuals for war crimes, and whether one is considering the operation of law as an ex ante modifier of behavior, or as ex post mechanism for imposing accountability. We then dive into a discussion of some of the specific aspects of IDF conduct of hostilities, with a focus on strikes on civilian targets, and the use of indiscriminate weapons (or use of inappropriate weapons causing indiscriminate harm) in civilian areas, as well as how one should best understand the IDF's use of warnings, the use of AI in targeting decisions, and the claims that Hamas is employing human shields. There is much to unpack, and there is much that we could not get to, but it is fascinating if sobering analysis. For links to bios and all materials referenced, check our website at:

https://jibjabpodcast.com

A conversation with Professors Ingrid Brunk of Vanderbilt University Law School and Monica Hakimi of Columbia University Law School, about their forthcoming article on the prohibitions against annexations - a prohibition that is related to and often conflated with the prohibition agains the use of force, but which is distinct and important. We discuss the origins and operation of the principle, what the theoretical and practical implications it has for the jus ad bellum and international peace and security, how it is under threat and what the ramifications of that are - a fascinating discussion about an important piece of scholarship. For more info, see our website, at:

https://jibjabpodcast.com

In a cross-posted episode I discuss with Jonathan Hafetz, host of the Law on Film podcast, and professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, the film "Eye in the Sky" - a 2015 film about a British and U.S. operated drone strike against al Shabaab terrorists in Kenya, which intelligently and engagingly explores the legal, ethical, philosophical, political, and strategic issues raised by the operation. We focus on and examine the film's treatment of the legal principles implicated, but also explore their relationship with some of the ethical and strategic aspects of the decision-making, and go on to place the movie in the context of some other engaging films that explore law in the context of armed conflict.

For more information, including reading materials, visit our webpage at:

https://jibjabpodcast.com

A round-table discussion with Professors Monika Hakimi of Columbia Law School, Adil Haque of Rutgers Law School, and Marko Milanovic of Reading Univ. School of Law, on the question of whether Israel has a right of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter in response to the Hamas attacks on October 7. The incident raises, and we explore, important questions about the scope of the prohibition on the use of force in Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter and its relationship with the right of self-defense under Art. 51 - does the prohibition apply to action against non-state actors in occupied territory, and if not does Art. 51 operate? And is there a right of self-defense against non-state actors at all?. We also discuss how the status of Gaza and whether it is part of a state of Palestine alters the analysis, as well as whether and how the right of self-determination relates to the jus ad bellum regime in this context, and how the principle of proportionality in the doctrine of self-defense should best be interpreted in this context. It is a fascinating discussion with some of the foremost experts in the field. For more information and links to the readings referred to, visit our website at:

https://jibjabpodcast.com.

A discussion with Tom Dannenbaum, a professor of international law at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, on his work on the war crime of starvation. We delve into the proper interpretation of the IHL prohibition on starvation as a method of warfare, and the war crime of intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in the Rome Statute of the ICC, considering what precisely constitutes the criminal act, and what exactly is the nature of the wrong that the crime seeks to address. We go on to discuss how this should inform our understanding of the Israeli siege of Gaza. For more info and links to the materials, visit our website at:

https://jibjabpodcast.com

A discussion with Chris O'Meara, Lecturer at Exeter University Law School, about his new book, "Necessity and Proportionality and the Right of Self-Defence In International Law." Chris explains his novel taxonomy for the principle of necessity, and how the relationship among necessity, proportionality, and imminence should be properly understood, and we delve into some of the potentially controversial claims he makes, on how necessity operates as a limiting principle, where the gravity threshold should be for for armed attack, whether the principles of self-defence are modified in responses to non-state actors, why the assertions and actions of a minority of powerful states should be considered so heavily in thinking about custom, and so much more! A fascinating conversation.

For more info and links, visit our webpage: https://jibjabpodcast.com