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).
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.
In this first episode of Season 3 of the podcast, I speak with 
In the last episode of Season 2, I speak with 
In this episode I discuss the legal issues raised in the Gaza conflict of May 2021, with Professors 
In this episode, I speak with 
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!
In this episode I speak with 
In this episode, I relinquish the hosting to