Former President of Ireland and academic lawyer Dr Mary McAleese delivers a powerful and wide-ranging address on democracy, human dignity, planetary health, and the rule of law in this special end-of-year episode of The Justice Edit (formerly Horsehair Wigs).

Recorded in front of a live audience at an IRLI event at the Law Society of Ireland in November, McAleese - in conversation with barrister, Peter Leonard - offers a searing assessment of the global political climate, warning of democratic backsliding, the rise of undemocratic leaders, and the growing normalisation of war and authoritarian power.

Reflecting on the postwar international order, she cautions that, “Coming out of the Second World War, we hear now more warmongering talk, all of which can feed the big business that spins out of the war machine.”

At the heart of her address is a clear ethical demand: "The sacredness of the human person, the sacredness of the earth — these things have got to be embedded in the employment of capital and big business. Without that, you get a wrecking match — and that’s what we’re seeing.”

McAleese warns that democratic progress is never guaranteed, noting that even long-established democracies are now centres of decline: “Rather tragically, famous democracies are now the centre of that backsliding. They use the words democracy and rule of law, but in a sense that none of us would recognise as having any credibility.”

She also reflects on the election of autocratic leaders within democratic systems, calling it “an awful sad thing… to see democracies capable of electing autocrats and people with second-century imperial ambitions.”

The conversation explores the role of international institutions in resisting impunity and defending accountability. Of the International Criminal Court, McAleese observes that while some states may walk away from responsibility, “the fact that it exists… sends a message to all people under abusers of the rule of law that outside of them, there’s a world that actually dares to care.”

She further defends the European Union as a cornerstone of postwar peace and cooperation, urging citizens not to abandon it in moments of frustration: “If you have problems with the European Union, remember why it’s there… You don’t walk away from it. You stay and fight your ground.”

McAleese also challenges religious institutions to engage more actively in confronting violence, exploitation, and indifference, noting their global influence, before closing with a stark warning: “We are facing existential crises — and they are upon us in this generation.”

This episode was recorded in memory of James Douglas, Irish Rule of Law International’s late Executive Director, and is dedicated to his commitment to human rights and the rule of law.

This episode was recorded live in front of an audience, and some variation in audio quality is to be expected.

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty.

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or its donors.

The Americas director of Human Rights Watch, Juanita Goebertus Estrada sits down with us this month to talk about El Salvador’s policy of mass incarceration.

For a country the size of Massachusetts in the US, El Salvador has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Unlawful detention and an abuse of power have become hallmarks of the reign of the Salvadorian President, Nayib Bukele, who once described himself as “the world’s coolest dictator”. The country is a long-running state of emergency – since 2022 - and there are calls to reinstate suspended constitutional rights.

“Now, El Salvador has the equivalent of 1.4% of its people incarcerated. In many senses for Salvadorians, this has been presented as a paradox: if they want security, they need to sacrifice their human rights,” says Juanita.

According to the World Justice Project, El Salvador ranks 111th across 142 countries in its rule of law index for 2024, with steady declines since 2020. It all started as a crackdown on gangs in 2022 after a series of homicides committed by criminal gangs, but quickly turned into a policy of mass incarceration. Various human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have documented arbitrary arrests, torture and huge violations of due process.

According to Juanita: “It started by being able to capture without a warrant, being able to prosecute without sufficient evidence and maintaining people in pre-trial detention indefinitely.” 

And as Bukele ramped up his crackdown on civil liberties, he gained a significant ally in the US President Donald Trump. In exchange for a few million dollars, Trump unlawfully deported over 200 Venezuelans from the US who were held in El Salvador’s high security prison for gang members. The deal was done after Bukele went to Washington to visit Trump.

“Seeing Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office, it seemed as if they were sharing lessons on how to be an authoritarian leader,” says Juanita.

With over 100,000 people now in prison in the country and with reports of torture and mass violations of due process, what’s its future? And what sort of an impact is Trump’s relationship with Bukele having on wider power dynamics in Latin America? Tune in, to hear Juanita’s compelling insights.

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty.

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or its donors.

Patrick Paul Walsh of the School of Politics and International Relations at University College Dublin talks to us about the future of overseas aid.

Dr. Walsh is currently on secondment to the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, where he works as Vice President of Education and the Director of the Sustainable Development Goals Academy. He voices his support for continued efforts towards sustainable development goals, for the greater good: “What it says is that you actually do care for people and nature outside your own jurisdiction. And that you do have a responsibility for them. To operate outside of that would be very, very dangerous.”

The most recent figures from the OECD show that international aid from donors fell in 2024 by over 7%. And the headlines have been dominated, this year, by the dismantling of USAID - the largest historical provider of aid. Dr. Walsh questions the lack of a contingency plan for such a big withdrawal of money: “Did anyone think of insuring the project for anyone pulling out? Was there any contingency plan for this? How do, suddenly, the doors shut, and people who need important medicines or orphanages… how do these just close overnight?”

Where do we go from here? How do we continue to address global issues, like peace and security, climate change and human rights? Dr. Walsh says people are now looking at other ways of potentially financing developing countries: “We’re kind of thinking how do we finance a sustainable planet. And all countries need to be involved in sustainable development pathways. It’s all people everywhere, not just governments of the developing world…. People are starting to think, why wouldn’t richer countries provide state guarantees? Why wouldn’t they go in with intergovernmental banks? And why can’t big insurance companies do all the modelling and risk analysis? The bottom line is… the money would be there.”

Dr. Walsh believes, firmly, that Ireland should continue to push for an international rules-based order and multilateralism, ways in which sustainable development goals can be achieved. As many countries scale up militarisation and misalign themselves with international law, he believes that operating outside of an international order would be very, very dangerous: “We have to do everything possible to promote diplomacy across the world, for everyone. We never should get behind any flags that are against that. And, of course, if they break international law, you call them out. Of course, you support court cases against them in international courts, but you are basically neutral and you want the international order to work, and you keep pushing for that.”

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty.

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

From supporting Ukrainian justice actors in investigating and prosecuting international crimes to the weakening of the rule of law and the climate crisis, our guest this month, Aonghus Kelly has a lot to talk about.

Aonghus is an international criminal and human rights lawyer and has just finished his stint as head of the international crimes’ legal unit for the European Union Advisory Mission (EUAM), Ukraine. Aonghus and his team were brought in after Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country, to help document and collate information, with a view to prosecutions. But, unlike the International Criminal Court, EUAM doesn't have an executive mandate, which Aonghus found frustrating: “You know what to do. You know how to do it. You know what needs to be done. But you can’t do it. So you can just advise them.” And Aonghus is also skeptical about seeing multiple cases go before the ICC, believing rather in financial compensation as a more realistic means of justice for Ukrainians, but says redirecting frozen Russian assets for this purpose might prove problematic: “What about the other terrible actions being taken by sovereign countries around the world. Are their assets going to be seized?”

Aonghus, like other previous guests on the podcast, expresses great concern over the rule of law, as some western states continue to support Israel: “Given what we are lecturing the Russians on, this is a little problematic, if western countries aren’t as fulsome in their expressions as regards Israel, as they have been as regards Russia. In fact, it worries me deeply because it seems to prove one of Putin’s talking points, which is that the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Justice system, the International Rule of Law is all a western construct and is a complete fake and just serves the west. I don’t believe that. I have never believed that. But you’d have to say, this is a useful piece of evidence for him (Putin), to exhibit before us all and say, ‘I told you’.

Aonghus recently upskilled in getting a Masters in Sustainability from Cambridge. He talks about the climate crisis, the human rights abuses associated with extractivism, climate denialism and biodiversity loss: “What we are telling people right now is, ‘We don’t care if your land is being swallowed up by the Sahara Desert, or the rains don’t come anymore, or the big fishing ships have come from rich Northern countries and have swooped up all of your fish. We don’t care about any of that. You need to stay there in squalor and, of course, do look at your mobile phone that we have sold you.'”

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty.

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

What does the rule of law mean? That’s the question on our podcast this month, with our guest Maria McCloskey, Irish Rule of Law International’s (IRLI) Executive Director.

There is no one-agreed definition of the rule of law, but broadly it’s a set of principles upon which a foundation of a society is built and governed - politically, institutionally and legally. Some of the core elements are justice, equality and peace. For Maria: “The key principles, for me, are equality before the law, access to justice and it’s also about having an independent judiciary, and that separation of powers between legislature and the judiciary.”

Maria further discusses what the rule of law means in the context of IRLI’s programming. With an extensive access to justice programme in Malawi, serving the most vulnerable in the community and a programme in Zambia helping to tackle widespread corruption in the country, along with a pilot project improving access to justice for unrepresented accused people, Maria feels there is great interest in IRLI’s work: “Almost on a daily basis I have individuals and organisations saying, ‘Is there anything I can do?,’ so I know that the will of the people here in Ireland - North and South - is huge and growing all the time.”

Maria’s thoughts are especially interesting, given recent sweeping blows to human rights globally, particularly since U.S President Donald Trump entered his second term in office. “We can see so many countries around the world starting to take backward or retrograde steps and undoing some of those systems that have been built up since World War II. There is an element of the unravelling of the protections which is very concerning and worrying,” she says.

Maria also talks about another pilot programme IRLI has launched, in Tigray, supporting victims’ groups; ensuring their voices are heard, as part of the peace process there. She believes that academics and civil society groups in Ireland are uniquely positioned to provide expertise in the transitional justice space, given The Troubles in the North. And she talks about a recent visit to Ireland from the Ukrainian judiciary, who operate in the country despite Russia’s continued invasion.

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty.

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

On this month’s show, we’re joined by Alia Al Ghussain, a researcher and advisor with Amnesty Tech, who talks about the huge need to centre human rights in the technology sector.

“This is a bad situation and it’s primed to get even worse,” she says, on the back of the move by Meta earlier this year, to end its practice in the US of fact-checking information posted on its platform. The development is seen as a backward step to curry favour with the Trump administration, according to Alia: “It marks a very clear retreat from the company’s previously stated commitments to responsible content governance and I think it also shows that Meta hasn’t learned from its previous recklessness, or if it has learned anything that those learnings have been discarded, basically.”

Amnesty Tech has previously investigated and released reports into the role that various tech companies have had in human rights abuses. One of the major reports that first shed light on the issue - that of digital players now needing to own responsibility - was its report into the persecution of the Rohingya Muslim community in Myanmar, looking into what role Meta played; how hate speech on its platform promoted violence against the Rohingya. The report found that, “Meta’s algorithms proactively amplified and promoted content which incited violence, hatred, and discrimination against the Rohingya – pouring fuel on the fire of long-standing discrimination and substantially increasing the risk of an outbreak of mass violence.” And it concluded that: “Meta substantially contributed to adverse human rights impacts suffered by the Rohingya and has a responsibility to provide survivors with an effective remedy.” Another major report Alia was involved in looked at Facebook’s role in contributing to violence during the brutal two-year conflict in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region, which began in 2020 when the Ethiopian government began military operations there against the region’s ruling party. Amnesty concluded that Meta had once again – “through its content-shaping algorithms and data-hungry business model – contributed to serious human rights abuses.”

In this episode, Alia explains how big tech players make their money from users’ data and discusses the harmful impacts of algorithmic curated content. She also shares her knowledge on how content goes viral, emphasising that it’s not necessarily that the content is good, but rather that it elicits an emotional reaction amongst users and generates a lot of engagement.

Ultimately, Alia believes that digital platforms need to be redesigned with human rights at the centre and she calls for more governance in this area: “I think that governments and some regional bodies, like the EU, really need to double down their efforts to rein in big tech companies, like Meta and others, and also to hold them accountable… because this is about people’s lives at the end of the day. This isn’t an intellectual debate.”

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

On the programme this month, we talk to Dr. John Reynolds of Maynooth University, who discusses the reaction of states to the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the country’s former defence minister Yoav Gallant over suspected war crimes in Gaza.

There’s been a mixed reaction to the move by the ICC. States signed up to the court are obliged to arrest both men on their territory, however there’ve been statements to suggest otherwise. John says that’s because law and the legal system isn’t insulated from geopolitics, imperialism or war economies: “The ICC, to take that as example, is not a panacea and we shouldn’t expect it to be. We are talking about major entrenched imperial power relations here… it’s one of many political battlegrounds and arenas of struggle.”

The US, which is not a member of the ICC, has a contentious relationship with the court. John talks about these historical difficulties and the move by the US to sanction ICC officials in protest over the latest arrest warrants: “Because there’s a question of the west’s own internal self-reflection; What does this mean for us if Israeli leaders can be put on trial?’ And this speaks most directly and explicitly to the US position,” says John.

After accusations going back some time by African states that the ICC is guilty of selective prosecutions of cases originating in Africa, this is the first time that the court has issued a warrant for a leader of a Western ally, in Netanyahu, which John reflects on. He says there is still a narrative, among the states who oppose the arrest warrants that, “… this is wrong from the perspective of the legitimacy of the court because we can’t create an equivalent between elected leaders of a democratic state, like Israel… we can’t equate them with these African warlords or non-state terror groups that we see as threats to our world view.”

John says that Palestinian groups are pushing for an extension of the crimes being prosecuted, which currently include the war crime of starvation, as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.

IRLI, as a supporter of national and international courts and judicial independence, believes strongly in the authority of the ICC and the responsibility of states signed up to the court to abide by its principles.

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

The Director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law, Nikki Reisch is our guest on the show this month. Niki talks about the advisory opinion expected this year from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences for governments concerning climate change.

The pending opinion comes on the back of two weeks of climate hearings in The Hague in December. In the largest case in its history, the ICJ heard from almost 100 countries and communities who delivered their testimonies on climate change. Nikki was there and described the atmosphere in the court as hugely moving: “The countries that are literally losing ground to the ravages of climate change showed time and again, through this process, that they not only have the moral high-ground, but the legal high-ground.”

The case at the ICJ was led by the Pacific Island of Vanuatu and brought about as a result of the efforts of twenty-seven law students from the University of the South Pacific. Pacific island communities are among those on the frontline of climate change, once living in harmony with the ocean, now threatened by rising sea levels caused largely by warming global temperatures, caused largely as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Kicking off proceedings, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change and environment, Mr. Ralph Regenvanu said responsibility for the climate crisis lay squarely with, “a handful of readily identifiable states,” that had produced the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions but stood to lose the least from the impacts. Nikki says there was a very clarion call from countries around the world to reject efforts to give polluters a free pass and to instead carve out their conduct from long-standing fundamental principles of international law, saying the push, “was really resounding.” According to Nikki: “The whole world knows what caused this crisis and which countries bear the most responsibility and they’re simply asking for the court to affirm that, yes indeed, that conduct was in violation of legal obligations then and now, and that there is a duty to remedy and repair that harm.”

A stark division emerged during the two weeks at the ICJ, during which countries like the US, Britain, Germany and France were heavily criticised for their stance and accused of talking down ambitious climate action. For example - the world’s largest historic greenhouse gas emitter, the US, its representative at the talks Margaret Taylor - its then legal adviser at the state department - said the current UN climate change regime, “embodies the clearest, most specific, and the most current expression of states’ consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change,” adding, “any other legal obligations relating to climate change mitigation identified by the court should be interpreted consistently with the obligations states have under this treaty regime.” She was talking about treaties agreed at UN climate change talks, known as the Conference of the Parties (COP), and the historic agreement reached by states in 2015, known as the Paris Agreement. That’s when states pledged to keep the warming of the planet below 1.5°C degrees. And although, since coming into his second term in office, in January 2025, US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, Nikki argues that the issue at stake at the ICJ goes well beyond the Paris Agreement: “It’s important to clarify that countries’ legal obligations to prevent, minimise and remedy that impacts of climate change neither starts nor ends with the Paris Agreement. Those agreements (COP agreements), they were adopted under the backdrop of human rights law and long-standing international law. One of the fundamental tenants of inter-state relations in respect of sovereignty is that one country can’t undertake activities or allow activities on its territory that would harm another. And that it was, in fact, in response to those long-standing principles, not in spite of them or to replace or displace them, that the climate treaties were agreed. But in fact, nothing in those treaties cuts off the application of those laws or suggests that they replace or supplant existing obligations.”

Ultimately, Nikki believes that what was heard at the ICJ hearings will offer huge hope: “The knowledge that people can unite together, to not only stand up against big polluters and powers with vested interest, but actually influence the course of history and use the law for justice, not for advantage and self-interest. And I think that’s really part of what makes this a watershed moment for human rights, climate justice and accountability.”

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

Our podcast this month is a personal and professional tribute to a dear former Irish Rule of Law International colleague – international criminal and human rights lawyer James Douglas, who sadly died earlier this year. One of his best friends and fellow human rights lawyer, Pat de Brún reflects on his life and work. Pat is Head of Big Tech Accountability & Deputy Director of Amnesty Tech at Amnesty International.

James, from Dublin in Ireland, started his career with an internship at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, where he spent almost five years working as a lawyer and an investigator. He then joined an organisation, called Equitable Cambodia, a land rights organisation, with a heavy focus on community engagement. Afterwards, and a brief period working with the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in South Korea, he began working with Victim Advocates International, which enabled him to merge his two primary interests: community engagement and international criminal law. He mainly worked with Rohingya survivors of the 2017 clearance operations, assisting them with devising advocacy and legal strategies. James joined IRLI during Covid-19 in October 2020 and worked as Director of Programmes and also served as Executive Director.

We miss him deeply.

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty.

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

The Executive Director of the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) at the International Criminal Court (ICC), Deborah Ruiz Verduzco is our guest on the show this month.

The Trust Fund for Victims at the ICC is a central part of the court’s mandate: the reparative justice pillar of the court, giving effect to victims’ right to redress. But the court faces multiple challenges: “The principle is that convicted persons will be paying for these reparations and the practice has been that in the five cases to date, none of the convicted persons have had the resources for this,” says Verduzco. This has meant that states that have signed up to the court, founded by the Rome Statute, are now, unexpectedly, being asked to contribute to the fund, says Verduzco, “States have established the court and believe that this (fund) is important but they never expected themselves to be paying for this. So now that they need to pay for this, we need to create policy and logics to access those resources. We, of course, need to also work with the private sector… but ultimately this is a matter of the rule of law and, ultimately, a matter for states.”

In July of this year, the Trust Fund for Victims issued its first urgent funding appeal of €5 million, to launch a reparation programme for victims of Dominic Ongwen, a former child soldier-turned-Ugandan rebel commander, sentenced to 25 years in prison for crimes, including murder, rapes and forced pregnancy. ICC judges awarded 50,000 of his victims more than €52 million in reparations, an order rivalling the entire budget of the Office of the ICC Prosecutor in 2023 (€59,340,000). Ongwen, himself, has no money and cannot pay any of it. Deborah talks about the appeal and the substantial ICC order, “How much of that money have we received? At the moment the pledge has not been fulfilled. We are in the process of dialogue with states; they are interested, they want to understand – we are speaking of a new era of giving money for different purposes, so we are really at the beginning of that process. But I am confident, I am hopeful that this will be fulfilled,” she says.

But the fund doesn’t deal exclusively in cash. “We are not talking about, necessarily, always or if at all money. But we are looking at what the harm is and what measures can be taken to repair that harm, always in a symbolic manner,” Deborah outlines.

In this episode, we get great insight into the workings of the fund, a hugely multifaceted arm of the ICC. It’s a fund heavily criticised for failing to deliver on its mandate, criticisms Verduzco addresses.

Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty.

With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.