Episode 44 – Jessica Dorsey on the Negotiations over Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems in the CCW

by

Jessica Dorsey

In this episode I speak with Jessica Dorsey of Utrecht University about the negotiations on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva. Jessica is a Washburn Law alumna who went on to graduate work at Utrecht University and the University of Amsterdam, and worked at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, among other European institutions, before joining the faculty at Utrecht. A scholar of drone warfare and, more recently, of AI-enabled targeting and autonomous weapons, she has advised political, legal and policy institutions on these issues for many years, and took part in the CCW negotiations as a civil-society expert.

The debate over whether autonomous weapons can comply with IHL in all circumstances, and whether IHL as it stands can adequately govern them, has run within the CCW for more than a decade. It gained new momentum in 2023, when the CCW’s Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) was mandated to formulate the elements of an instrument on LAWS, leaving open whether it would be binding, in time for the Seventh Review Conference in 2026. The Chair’s “rolling text” went through several iterations, attracted growing support from States as a basis for negotiating a binding treaty, and became the substance of the GGE’s report, adopted in the early hours of 5 September 2026.

Our conversation covers how those negotiations developed and what the definition of LAWS captures and excludes, including AI targeting and decision-support systems such as those used in Gaza and Iran. It also covers why many States believe new law is needed, and how a handful of States resisted and diluted the text’s limitations. We discuss the dynamics of the final session, which ran late into the night, behind closed doors and without interpretation. Finally, we look at the prospects for the Seventh Review Conference, 16–20 November 2026, which some see as the last best chance to establish global governance of so-called killer robots.

Materials:

– Report of the 2024–2025–2026 Sessions of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, U.N. Doc. CCW/GGE.1/2026/3 (Sept. 2026).

– GGE on LAWS, Rolling Text (5 June 2026).

– Jessica Dorsey, Rain Liivoja, Netta Goussac, Sally Longworth & Anna Andersson, “Symposium on the CCW GGE LAWS: The End of the Beginning – An Introduction,” Opinio Juris, Oct. 5, 2026.

– Jessica Dorsey, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want – The (D)evolution of Responsibility and Accountability,” Opinio Juris, Oct. 9, 2026.

– International Committee of the Red Cross, Working Paper submitted to the CCW GGE on LAWS (Aug. 2026).

Reading Recommendations:

– Elke Schwarz, “The Hacker Way” (book chapter, CRC Press).

– Elke Schwarz, Death Machines: The Ethics of Violent Technologies (Manchester University Press, 2018).

– Zena Assaad & Lt. Col. Adam Hepworth, “AI DSS and the Erosion of Technical Integrity: Rethinking Human Decision-Making in Modern Warfare,” Australian Army Research Centre.

– Zena Assaad & Jessica Dorsey, “Designing Lawful Military AI: Technical and Legal Reflections on Decision-Support and Autonomous Weapon Systems,” Perry World House, University of Pennsylvania, Nov. 24, 2025.

Episode 43 – Janina Dill and Monica Hakimi on The Attacks on Iran: Implications for International Law

by

In this episode I speak with Monica Hakimi of Columbia Law School and Janina Dill of the University of Oxford about the legal implications of the unlawful US and Israeli war attacks on Iran. We begin by establishing the unlawfulness under jus ad bellum before turning to the larger and more unsettling questions raised by this moment: whether the UN Charter system on the use of force is dying or already dead, and what distinguishes this crisis from prior violations. Janina argues that the preventative self-defense being advanced by the US, if normalized, would be fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law, drawing on the German concept of Rechtsstaatlichkeit to show why a system in which states use force based on unilateral threat assessments is not a legal order but a regime of self-help. Monica situates the crisis within longer structural trends — the slow transfer of decision-making authority away from the Security Council and toward individual states acting unilaterally, the erosion of US commitment to the system that long predates the Trump administration, and the failure of states collectively to rally behind the Charter when it mattered. From there, we explore what states, as well as international lawyers and legal scholars should be doing in a moment when unlawfulness has given way to open lawlessness and complete disregard for the law. A rich and urgently important conversation.

Materials:

– Janina Dill,  “The Illegality of the US Attacks Against Venezuela is Beyond Debate – How the World Reacts is Critical,” University of Oxford Expert Comment, Jan. 7, 2026.

– Monica Hakimi, “The End of the U.S.-Backed International Order and the Future of International Law,” 119 American Journal of International Law, 279 (2025) (with Jacob Katz Cogan).

Reading Recommendations:

Monica Hakimi:

– Mark Mazower, Governing the World: The History of an Idea, 1815 to the Present (2012).

– Lauren Benton, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (2010).

– American Journal of International Law, Vol. 120, Special Issue 1: “The Past and Future of International Law” (January 2026).

Janina Dill:

– The international law blogosphere: Just Security, EJIL:Talk!, Opinio Juris, Articles of War.

– Philippe Sands, East West Street: On the Origins of “Genocide” and “Crimes Against Humanity” (2016).

– Annette Stimmer, The Politics of International Norms (2025).

Craig Martin:

– Philippe Sands, The Last Colony: A Tale of Exile, Justice and Britain’s Colonial Legacy (2022).

Episode 42 – Monica Hakimi on Understanding the Current Crisis in International Law

by

In this episode I speak once again with Monica Hakimi of Columbia Law School about how best to understand and respond to the current upheaval in 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 foundation for  understanding both why and how the international legal order is in a process of such dramatic transformation, in large measure due to the withdrawal of American support, and thus how best to recognize the opportunities that may allow us to better respond to the crisis. From this theoretical foundation we move 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 – particularly in light of the intervention in Venezuela that occurred a week after we recorded this!

Materials:

– “Thinking Constructively about International Law,” Yale Journal of International Law (forthcoming, 2026)(link to SSRN).

– “The End of the U.S.-Backed International Order and the Future of International Law,” 119 American Journal of International Law, 279 (2025) (with Jacob Katz Cogan).

Reading Recommendations:

– Natasha Wheatley, The Life and Death of States: Central Europe and the Transformation of Modern Sovereignty (2023).

– Linda Kinstler, Come to this Court to Cry: How the Holocaust Ends (2022).

– American Journal of International Law, Vol. 119, Issue 3 – “Special Issue: Reparations in International Law” (2025).

– American Journal of International Law, Vol. 119, Issue 4 – “Special Issue on the Contemporary Practice of the United States at the Outset of President Trump’s Second Term in Office”, Ed. Jacob Katz Cogan.

Episode 41 – Brian Finucane on the US Killing of Drug Smugglers

by

In this episode I speak with Brian Finucane, a senior advisor at the International Crisis Group, and former lawyer in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the U.S. Department of State, where he advised on law and policy issues relating to war powers, the use of force, counterterrorism and the laws of war. We discuss the legality of the U.S. military strikes against alleged drug smugglers in the Southern Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, exploring whether either self-defense under jus ad bellum, or international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflict, can be said to 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 lawfulness of any future U.S. military strikes against alleged drug cartels within the territory of Venezuela, and the separate question of the lawfulness of any larger military intervention in Venezuela for purposes of regime change. We try to put the strikes and threat of wider military action in the region into the broader context of the ongoing assault against the international rule of law – this activity is important precisely because it is so brazenly violating the most fundamental international law rules.

Materials:

– Brian Finucane, “Legal Issues Raised by a Lethal U.S. Military Attack in the Caribbean,” Just Security, Sept. 3, 2025.

– Tess Bridgeman, Brian Finucane Rachel Goldbrenner and Rebecca Ingber, The Just Security Podcast: Murder on the High Seas Part II, Oct. 7, 2025.

– Michael Schmitt, “Striking Drug Cartels Under the Jus ad Bellum and Law of Armed Conflict,” Just Security, Sept. 10, 2025.

Reading Recommendations:

– The Just Security, “Collection: on U.S. Lethal Strikes on Suspected Drug Traffickers.”

– The International Crisis Group, “Beware the Slide Toward Regime Change in Venezuela,” Oct. 23, 2025.

– Jack Goldsmith, “The Venezuela Boat Strikes and the Justice Department’s Golden Shield,” Executive Functions (Substack), Oct. 27, 2025.

Episode 40 – Harold Hongju Koh on the National Security Constitution for the 21st Century, International Law, and the Trump Administration

by

In this episode I speak with Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School, former legal counsel to the Department of State among several other positions in government, as well as former Dean of Yale Law School. We discuss his new book, The National Security Constitution for the 21st Century, which builds on his famous earlier book that will be familiar to most listeners. The new book similarly examines the structural and systemic reasons for the dangerously increased strength of the executive branch of government in the U.S., but analyzes how the process has simply accelerated in the post Cold-War and post 9/11 eras, and it explores the 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.  We even revisit his own role in government in the context of these issues, and discuss whether he has a different perspective on any of the positions he once took. Finally, we discuss how a second Trump administration makes the prospect for reform more difficult, and the outlook for international law more fraught – but ultimately we end on an optimistic and even inspiring note, as Harold explains how and why lawyers and legal scholars must answer the call to defend the rule of law.

Materials:

– The National Security Constitution for the 21st Century (2024).

– The Trump Administration and International Law (2019).

– Just Security: Symposium on Harold Hongju Koh’s ‘The National Security Constitution for the 21st Century,‘ Oct. 25, 2024.

Reading Recommendations:

– Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century (2016).

– David Sanger, New Cold Wars: China’s Rise, Russia’s Invasion, and America’s Struggle to Defend the West, (2024).

– Nicolas Kristof, Chasing Hope: A Reporter’s Life (2024).

– Richard Kruger, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s Struggle for Equality (2004).

Episode 39 – Dill & Haque on IHL and the IDF Conduct of Hostilities in Gaza

by

In this episode 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.

Materials:

– Tom Dannenbaum and Janina Dill, “International Law in Gaza: Belligerent Intent and Provisional Measures,” American Journal of International Law, (forthcoming, 2024)(link to SSRN version).

– United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, and the Obligation to Ensure Accountability and Justice – Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Feb. 23, 2024, U.N. Doc.No. A/HRC/55/28.

– United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, and Israel, May 27, 2024, U.N. Doc.No. A/HRC/56/26.

– Human Rights Watch, Gaza: Israelis Attacking Known Aid Worker Locations: End Unlawful Attack, Ensure Accountability, May 14, 2024.

– Amnesty International, Israel/OPT: Israeli Air Strikes that Killed 44 Civilians Further Evidence of War Crimes – New Investigation, May 27, 2024.

– Yuval Abraham, “‘Lavender’: The AI Machine Directing Israel’s Bombing Spree in Gaza,” +972 Magazine, Apr. 3, 2024.

– “Israel Defence Forces’ Response to Claims About Use of ‘Lavender’ AI Database in Gaza,” The Guardian, Apr. 3, 2024.

– Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hamas-Israel Conflict 2023: Key Legal Aspects, Nov. 2, 2023.

– John Ramming Chappell, “Key Takeaways from Biden Administration Report on Israeli Use of US Weapons,” Just Security, May 11, 2024.

Reading Recommendations:

– Yousuf Syed Khan, “The Directive to Evacuate Northern Gaza: Advance Warning or Force Displacement?,” Just Security, Oct. 19, 2023.

– Eliav Lieblich, “On Civilians’ Return to North Gaza: What International Humanitarian Law Requires,” Just Security, Feb. 12, 2024.

– Brianna Rosen, “Unhuman Killings: AI and Civilian Harm in Gaza,” Just Security, Dec. 15, 2023.

– Tom Dannenbaum, “The Siege of Gaza and the Starvation War Crime,” Just Security, Oct. 11, 2023.

– Mark Schack, “In Defence of Preliminary Assessments: Proportionality and the 31 October Attack on the Jabalia Refugee Camp,” EJILTalk!, Nov. 8, 2023.

– Janina Dill, “Our Shared Moral Horror,” EJILTalk!, Oct. 13, 2023.

Episode 38 – Brunk and Hakimi on the Prohibition Against Annexations

by

A discussion with Ingrid Weurth Brunk of Vanderbilt University Law School and Monica Hakimi of Columbia University Law School, on their recent law review article on the prohibition against annexation. They are argue that the prohibition against the annexation of territory is related to and has emerged from three other fundamental principles of international law – namely the prohibition against the use of force, the right to self-determination, and the principle of territorial sovereignty – but that it is nonetheless distinct from each of these, and that this distinction is important. The significance of the principle has been obscured and it is too often conflated with the prohibition on the use of force, in ways that have important theoretical and practical implications for the jus ad bellum. We discuss all of this, and the ways in which they argue that the principle is under threat, and possibly in the process of being eroded, with significant implications for not only jus ad bellum but international law and the inter-state system itself. A fascinating discussion about a really important piece of scholarship.

Materials:

– “The Prohibition of Annexations and the Foundations of Modern International Law,” American Journal of International Law (forthcoming, 2024).

Reading Recommendations:

– Timothy Waters, Boxing Pandora: Rethinking Borders, States, and Secession in a Democratic World (2020).

– Naz Modirzadeh, “‘Let Us All Agree to Die a Little’: TWAIL’s Unfilfilled Promise,  65 Harvard International Law Journal 79 (2023).

– Juan Pablo Scarfi, “Latin America and the Idea of Peace,” The Oxford Handbook of Peace History (Charles Howlett, ed., 2022).

– Natasha Wheatley, The Life and Death of States: Central Europe, and the Transformation of Modern Sovereignty (2023).

Episode 37 – Martin and Hafetz on “Eye in the Sky”

by

This episode is a joint production and cross-posting with the Law on Film Podcast, produced and hosted by Jonathan Hafetz, a professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, and expert in national security law, international criminal law and human rights, as well as constitutional law. We discuss the film “Eye in the Sky,” a 2015 film likely known to most JIB/JAB listeners,  about a joint British and American drone strike against al-Shabaab terrorists in Kenya, and which intelligently and engagingly explores the legal, ethical, philosophical, political, and strategic issues raised by the operation. We not only examine the film’s treatment of the legal issues implicated, including whether IHL should apply at all, and how the principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality, and precautions in attack are illustrated in the film, but we also explore the relationship between these principles and some of the ethical and strategic aspects of the decision-making in the film. We round out the conversation with a discussion of some other engaging films that similarly explore law in the context of armed conflict. I very much enjoyed the conversation!

Materials:

– Craig Martin, A Means-Methods Paradox and the Legality of Drone Strikes in Armed Conflict, 19:2 Int’l J. Human Rights 142 (2015).

– House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Government’s Policy on the Use of Drones for Targeted Killing, Second Report, 2015-16 (2016).

– Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction, No-Strike and Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology, Feb. 13, 2009.

Movie Recommendations:

– Taxi to the Darkside (2007)

– Breaker Morant (1980)

– Paths of Glory (1957)

– A War (2015)

Episode 36 – Hakimi, Haque, and Milanovic on the Right of Self-Defense in Gaza

by

In this episode I speak with Monica Hakimi of Columbia Law School, Adil Haque of Rutgers Law School, and Marko Milanovic of University Reading 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 of October 7. This question has been the subject of some confusion in both the political and legal discourse, and raises a host of complicated issues regarding the scope of the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter and its relationship with the right of self-defense under Article 51, whether the right of self-defense depends upon Gaza being part of an established state of Palestine, whether self-defense is available in response to attacks by non-state actors in any event, whether the prohibition on the use of force may extent to protect non-state entities with a right of self-determination, what the scope of legitimate resistance by such entities may be, and how best to interpret the scope and operation of the principle of proportionality under the doctrine of self-defense if it applies here. We explore all of these questions, and discuss how the positions and actions taken by states may have in relation to these issues may have significant implications for the development of the jus ad bellum regime. An important and fascinating discussion.

Materials:

– Marko Milanovic, “Does Israel Have the Right to Defend Itself?” EJILTalk!, Nov. 14, 2023.

– Adil Haque, “Enough: Self-Defense and Proportionality in the Israel-Hamas Conflict,” Just Security, Nov. 6, 2023.

– Monica Hakimi, “Defensive Force against Non-State Actors: The State of Play.” 91 International Legal Studies 1 (2015).

(In addition, the discussion refers to recent blog posts, which can be accessed at the following links, by Michael Schmitt, Mary-Ellen O’Connell, Nicholas Tsagourisas, and Raphael Van Steenbergh).

Reading Recommendations:

– Ezra Klein, “The Ezra Klein Show,” The New York Times – the series on the Israel-Hamas Conflict (there have been 10 episodes thus far!) (Monica Hakimi).

– David Kretzmer, “The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus ad Bellum,” 24 European Journal of International Law 235 (2013) (Marko Milanovic).

– Ardi Imseis, “Negotiating the Illegal: On the United Nations and the Illegal Occupation of Palestine, 1967-2020,” 31 European Journal of International Law 1055 (2020) (Adil Haque).

– Colleen Murphy, “Israel, Hamas, and the Narratives of Atrocity,” The Daily Nous, October 25, 2023. (Adil Haque)

Episode 35 – Tom Dannenbaum on Sieges, the War Crime of Starvation, and Gaza

by

In this episode Tom Dannenbaum, a professor of international law and Co-Director of the International Law and Governance Center at The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University, discusses his work on the war crime of intentional starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. We begin with an analysis of the proper interpretation and operation of the prohibition on starvation as a method of warfare in International Humanitarian Law, as provided for in the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, and how this prohibition applies in the context of an encirclement siege, and how it relates to military necessity and the principle of distinction. We then turn to his contribution to the discourse on the best interpretation of the criminal prohibition in the Rome Statute. This involves a discussion of how best to understand the term “method of warfare,” what precisely constitutes the actus res of the crime, what is the nature of the intent that is required, and what the underlying wrong is said to be – and Tom’s claim that the incremental and drawn-out process of starvation and deprivation, far from being a mitigating factor, is precisely what makes the crime distinct, and informs how we should think about the actions that are prohibited. Finally, we turn to discuss the issue of the current siege of Gaza, informed by this theoretical analysis of how the relevant IHL and ICL prohibitions operate.

Materials:

– “Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture,” 22 Chicago Journal of International Law (2022).

– “Criminalizing Starvation in an Age of Mass Deprivation in War: Intent, Method, Form, and Consequence,” 55 Vanderbilt Journal of International Law 681 (2022).

– “The Siege of Gaza and the Starvation War Crime,” Just Security, Oct. 11, 2023.

Reading Recommendations:

– Naz Modirzadeh, “Cut These Words: Passion and International Law of War Scholarship,” 61 Harvard International Law Journal 1 (2020).

– Bridget Conley, Alex de Waal, Catriona Murcdoch, and Wayne Jordash, eds., Accountability for Mass Starvation: Testing the Limits of the Law (2022).

– Carsten Stahn, Justice as Message (2020).