Jus ad bellum

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 34 – Chris O’Meara on Necessity and Proportionality

by

In this episode I speak 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 describes his novel taxonomy for dividing the principle of necessity between general and specific necessity, and his blending the quantitative and teleological approaches to the principle of proportionality, and goes on to explain how the relationship among necessity, proportionality, and imminence should be properly understood. We delve into some of the more potentially controversial claims he makes, such as: on how he thinks necessity operates as a limiting principle; why the gravity threshold for armed attack should be lowered; 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, particularly in relation to clearly unlawful uses of force, and the corresponding silence of other states, should be considered so heavily in thinking about custom – and so much more! A fascinating conversation.

Materials:

– Necessity and Proportionality and the Right of Self-Defence in International Law (2021).

– “The Relationship Between National, Unit and Personal Self-Defence in International Law: Bridging the Disconnect,” 4 Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 273 (2017).

– “Reconceptualizing the Right of Self-Defence Against Imminent Armed Attacks,” 9 Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 278 (2022).

Recommended Reading:

– Craig Forcese, Destroying the Caroline: The Frontier Raid that Reshaped the Right to War (2018);

– Tom Ruys et al., The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach (2018);

– Jay Kristoff, Nevernight (2016).

Episode 28 – The War in Ukraine: Jus ad Bellum Implications

by

 

 

 

 

 

In this special episode, I discuss aspects of the Russian invasion of Ukraine with Professors Eliav Lieblich of Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law, Marko Milanovic of the University of Nottingham School of Law, and Ingrid Wuerth of Vanderbilt University School of Law. The focus of our discussion is how we should be thinking about what this war means for the jus ad bellum regime and the collective security system. While the invasion is clearly an unlawful and egregious act of aggression, have unlawful uses of force by Western states served to weaken the system in a way that is in any way relevant to the current conflict? Has the focus on humanitarian issues, and human rights law more generally, somehow similarly weakened the system? Should this war be understood as a failure of the collective security system? Is there a risk that the wrong lessons may be drawn from the conflict, particularly in the area of nuclear non-proliferation? And, perhaps most importantly, how should we begin to think about restoring or even reforming both the jus ad bellum regime and the collective security system more broadly? A fascinating discussion about hugely important issues.

Materials:

– Marko Milanovic, “What is Russia’s Legal Justification for Using Force in Ukraine,” EJILTalk!, Feb. 24, 2022.

– Ingrid Wuerth, “International Law and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine,” Lawfare, Feb. 25, 2022.

– Eliav Lieblich, “Not Far Enough: The European Court of Human Rights Interim Measures on Ukraine,” Just Security, Mar. 7, 2022.

– Monica Hakimi, Twitter thread exploring legal distinctions between Western violations of Art. 2(4) from the current Russian act of aggression.

Recommended Reading:

– Nicholas Mulder, The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of War (2022).

– International law blogs: EJILTalk!, Opinio Juris, Just Security, Lawfare, Armed Groups and International Law.

– Ruys, Tom, et al., The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach (2018).

Episode 27 – Samuel Moyn on the Humanizing of War

by

In this episode I speak with Samuel Moyn, who is a Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale Law School and Professor of History at Yale University. Sam has written a number of books on issues at the intersection of history and international human rights, but we here discuss his most recent book, Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War. Taking off from an insight of Leo Tolstoy’s, the book provocatively explores how an increasing focus on the humanization of war may have made us more accepting of armed conflict, and thereby undermined the movement to constrain the resort to war. In our discussion we explore some of the historical accounts that form the premises of this argument, including the claim that IHL did little to make war more humane until after the Vietnam war, particularly in the history of Western conflicts with non-white peoples; how armed conflict become far more humanized in the so-called “global war on terror;” and how this increasing focus on humanizing war has resulted in a corresponding decline in efforts to constrain the resort to war. We dig into the nature and implications of this claimed inverse relationship, and what forces and actors he thinks help to explain the phenomenon, and end with the question of what might might be done, and by whom, to address the problem of this declining focus on preventing war – an urgent question in the circumstances.

Materials:

– Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021).

Reading Recommendations:

– Amanda Alexander, “A Short History of International Humanitarian Law,” 26 European Journal of International Law 109 (2015).

– Boyd van Dijk, Preparing for War: The Making of the Geneva Conventions (Oxford Univ. Press, 2022).

– Giovanni Mantilla, Lawmaking Under Pressure: International Humanitarian Law and Internal Armed Conflict (Cornell Univ. Press, 2020).

Season 3: Episode 26 – Olivier Corten on The Law Against War

by

In this first episode of Season 3 of the podcast, I speak with Olivier Corten, Professor of International Law at the Center for International Law, Free University of Brussels, in Belgium. Olivier specializes in both the international law on the use of force, and international law theory, and was the Director of the Center for International Law at Free University of Brussels until 2019. In our conversation we discuss the 2nd edition of his book The Law Against War, which was published in late 2021 (the first edition was published in 2010). We begin with his analysis of the differing methodological approaches – what he calls the restrictive and the expansive approach – to international law on the use of force. From there, our conversation moves on to explore the substantive content of the book, beginning with the threshold for what constitutes a use of force, and moving through the scope and operation of the doctrine of self-defense, including the proper understanding of the role played by the principle of necessity, the validity of any and all conceptions of anticipatory self-defense, the use of force by invitation, and whether and how the law on the use of force applies to actions against non-state actors, and to cyber operations. We end where we started, discussing the problem posed by the very different theoretical and methodological approaches to an understanding of the jus contra bellum, and how one might think about bridging the divide.

Materials:

– The Law Against War, 2nd ed. (Hart Publishing, 2021).

Recommended Reading:

– Paulina Starski, “Silence within the Process of Normative Change and the Evolution of the Prohibition on the Use of Force: Normative Volatility and Legislative Responsibility,” 4 Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 14 (2017).

– Victor Kattan, “Furthering the ‘War on Terrorism’ Through International Law: How the United States and the United Kingdom Resurrected the Bush Doctrine on Using Preventative Military Force to Combat Terrorism,” 5 Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 97 (2018).

– Agatha Verdebout, Rewriting Histories of the Use of Force: The Narrative of ‘Indifference,’ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

Episode 25 – Aslı Bâli on Economic Sanctions and the Laws of War

by

In the last episode of Season 2, I speak with Aslı Bâli, Professor of Law at UCLA in the United States, and Co-Director of the Middle East Division of Human Rights Watch, among other things. She specializes in both international law as it relates to armed conflict and human rights, and on comparative constitutional law with a focus on the Middle East. We discuss the lawfulness of comprehensive autonomous economic sanctions, and the relationship they may have with the various regimes that govern the use of force and armed conflict. Economic sanctions are often viewed as a legitimate and effective alternative to the use of force in international relations. Yet comprehensive sanctions can and do cause the kind of humanitarian harm and economic disruption that in other circumstances could be unlawful under IHL, or constitute a use of force if caused by cyber operations or even naval blockade, and they are potentially in violation of human rights law. So aside from the ethical and strategic questions that they pose, economic sanctions raise legal issues, including issues at the intersection with the laws of war—which we explore in a fascinating conversation!

Materials:

– “Sanctions are Inhumane – Now , and Always,” The Boston Review, Mar. 26, 2020.

– Dapo Akande, Payam Akhavan, and Eirik Bjorge, “Economic Sanctions, International Law, and Crimes Against Humanity: Venezuela’s Referral to the International Criminal Court,” American Journal of International Law, Apr. 29, 2021.

Recommended Reading:

– Joy Gordon, Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions (2010).

– Alex de Waal, Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine (2018).

– Nicholas Mulder and Boyd van Dijk, “Why Did Starvation Not Become the Paradigmatic War Crime in International Law?” in Ingo Venzke and Kevin Jon Heller eds., Contingency in International Law (2021).

– Tom Dannenbaum, “Encirclement, Deprivation, and Humanity: Revising the San Remo Manual Provisions on Blockade,” 97 International Law Studies 307 (2021).

Episode 23 – The Gaza Conflict

by

In this episode I discuss the legal issues raised in the Gaza conflict of May 2021, with Professors Janina Dill of the University of Oxford, Adil Haque of Rutgers University Law School, and Aurel Sari of Exeter University Law School. The discussion begins by placing the legal issues in context, and addressing the question of whether the narrow focus on technical legal aspects may serve to obscure the broader ethical issues, or even facilitate and legitimate injustice. The analysis turns to the the questions regarding the legal authority or justification for Israel’s use of force, and whether its use of force complies with the limiting principles of whichever legal regime may govern. Turning to the conduct of hostilities, and using the attack on the Al Jalaa Tower (which housed Al Jazeera and AP) as a case study, we discuss the extent to which IDF actions complied with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack, debate the legal effect of warnings, and what burden there may be on belligerents to disclose evidence in support of their claims of lawfulness. A deep and sophisticated analysis of the issues.

Materials:

– Adil Haque, “The IDF’s Unlawful Attack on Al Jalaa Tower,” Just Security, May 27, 2021.

– Aurel Sari, “Israeli Attacks on Gaza’s Tower Blocks,” Articles of War, May 17, 2021.

Recommended Reading:

– Ayel Gross, “The 2021 Gaza War and the Limits of International Humanitarian Law,” Just Security, Jun. 1, 2021.

– Eliav Lieblich, “Dispatch from Israel on Human Shields: What I Should’ve Said to a Dad on the Playground,” Just Security, May 18, 2021.

– Noam Lubell and Amichai Cohen, “Strategic Proportionality: Limitations on the Use of Force in Modern Armed Conflicts,” 96 International Law Studies 160 (2020).

Episode 22 – Srinivas Burra on India’s Apparent Shift on Self-Defense

by

In this episode, I speak with Srinivas Burra, professor of law at South Asian University, Faculty of Legal Studies, in New Delhi, India. Srinivas has written extensively on both jus ad bellum and international humanitarian law, often with a focus on India’s practice and position in relation to these legal regimes. We discuss first how India’s position regarding the doctrine of self-defense, as indicated in statements in the recent Arria-formula meeting of the U.N. Security Council, appears to have shifted quite significantly as compared to the posture it adopted in the context of strikes against non-state actors within Pakistan in 2016 and 2019. Srinivas interprets the recent statements to suggest that India accepts both anticipatory self-defense and self-defense against non-state actors, but surprisingly, views its rejection of the “unwilling or unable” doctrine as taking a more expansive and aggressive posture than that doctrine allows when it comes to defending against non-state actors in non-consenting states. Turning to international humanitarian law, we discuss why India has continued to hold out against ratifying the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. Another fascinating discussion!

Materials:

– “India’s Decisive Turn on the Right to Self-Defence,” Opinio Juris, Mar. 22, 2021.

– “Use of Force as Self Defence against Non-State Actors and TWAIL Considerations: A Critical Analysis of India’s State Practice,” 24 Asian Yearbook of International Law (2018).

– “India’s Strange Position on the Additional Protocols of 1977,” EJILTalk!, Feb. 15, 2019.

Recommended Reading:

– B. S. Chimni, “The Articles on State Responsibility and the Guiding Principles of Shared Responsibility: A TWAIL Perspective,” 31 European Journal of International Law, volume 1211 (2020).

– Ntina Tzouvala, “TWAIL and the “Unwilling or Unable” Doctrine: Continuities and Ruptures,” 109 American Journal of International Law: Unbound  266 (2015).

– Frédéric Mégret, “From ‘Savages’ to ‘Unlawful Combatants’: A Postcolonial Look at International Humanitarian Law’s ‘Other’, in Anne Orford, ed., International Law and its Others, (2006).

Episode 21 – Yasuyuki Yoshida on Japanese Perspectives on the Jus ad Bellum Regime

by

In this episode I speak with Yasuyuki Yoshida, Professor of International Law at Takaoka University in Toyama Japan, and former Captain(N) in the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force. We discuss Japan’s posture on various aspects of the jus ad bellum regime, and whether or how its position may have changed as a result of the “reinterpretation” of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. Article 9 famously renounces the threat or use of force, and has long been understood to prohibit any collective self-defense or use of force authorized by the UN Security Council, but in 2014 the government purported to “reinterpret” the provision to relax its constraints. We discuss how the new policy relates to the jus ad bellum, and what Japan’s position is on a number of the more controversial elements of the doctrine of self-defense. The discussion includes surprising insights on how Japan would view a Chinese incursion on the Senkaku Islands, whether Japan would help defend Taiwan, and whether the US could invoke collective self-defense of Japan for preemptive strikes on North Korea. Another fascinating conversation!

Materials:

– Cabinet Decision on Development of Seamless Security Legislation to Ensure Japan’s Survival and Protect its People, July 1, 2014.

Reading Recommendation:

– Sheila Smith, Japan Rearmed: The Politics of Military Power (2019).

Episode 20 – Rebecca Ingber on Legally Sliding into War

by

In this episode I speak with Rebecca Ingber, Professor of Law at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, and formerly a lawyer in the Office of Legal Advisor in the U.S. Department of State. We discuss a recent essay in which Rebecca examines how international and domestic law operate together to facilitate the incremental moves by which the U.S. initiates, expands, and extends armed conflicts. The process involves legal justifications and rationales for each step towards war, with legal interpretations that, while made in good faith, are often strained and even beyond the pale. What is more, Congress and the courts tend to look to the international law principles as limitations on executive branch conduct, but then there is little check on how the executive branch lawyers interpret and expands such principles — and all of this focus on legal justification displaces a necessary and deeper policy analysis of the reasons for engaging in armed conflict. In exploring these issues, we also talk about whether legal scholars are fulfilling their role of keeping the government honest in its interpretation of international law, where exactly within the government such decisions get made, and why and how different areas of law get conflated and confused in the justifications for war!

Materials:

– “Legally Sliding Into War,” Just Security, Mar. 15, 2021.

– “International Law as Executive Power,” 57 Harvard Int’l Law J. (2016).

Recommended Reading:

– David Luban, “Complicity and Lesser Evils: A Tale of Two Lawyers,” Georgetown J. Legal Ethics, (forthcoming, 2021).

– Monica Hakimi, “The Jus ad Bellum‘s Regulatory Form,” 112 American J. Int’l L. 151 (2018) [See Episode 6!].

– E. M. Forester, The Machine Stops (1909).