LOAC

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 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).

 

Episode 32 – Boyd van Dijk on the Making of the Geneva Conventions

by

In this episode I speak with Boyd van Dijk, currently a McKenzie Fellow at the University of Melbourne, and formerly a fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law and the University of Cambridge. We talk about his new book, Preparing for War: The Making of the Geneva Conventions, which is a detailed history of the years-long process of negotiations that resulted in the treaties of 1949. We discuss some of the myths surrounding the history of the conventions, as well as the tensions and conflicts not just between parties to the negotiations, but also within the delegations and among different departments of each of the parties, caused by conflicting interests, values, and paradoxes within their positions. We dig into the weeds of some of the different aspects of the negotiations, and discuss why this history should matter to how we think about and understand the operation of the conventions today. A fascinating conversation that only scratches the surface of his book!

Materials:

– Preparing for War: The Making of the Geneva Conventions (2022).

Reading Recommendations:

– Giovanni Mantilla, Lawmaking Under Pressure: International Humanitarian Law and Internal Armed Conflict (2020);

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

– Jessica Whyte, “The ‘Dangerous Concept of the Just War’: Decolonization, Wars of National Liberation, and the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions,” Humanity, Jan. 2019.

 

Episode 5 – Eric Talbot Jensen on Human Judgment and Autonomous Weapons

by

In Episode 5, I speak with Eric Talbot Jensen, Professor of Law at BYU Law School. Eric discusses his recent law review article, in which he argues that the law of armed conflict does not require human judgment to be involved in targeting decisions, and that therefore autonomous weapons are not per se unlawful. What is more, he goes further to argue that because autonomous weapons are not unlawful, and may in fact comply with the rules of IHL better than humans, there should be no limitation on the research and development of such weapons. We discuss some of the strong ethical counter-arguments to his position.

Materials:

– “The (Erroneous) Requirement for Human Judgment (and Error) in the Law of Armed Conflict,” 96 Int’l L. Stud. 26 (2020).

Reading Recommendations:

– Paul Scharre, Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War (2018).

– United States Department of Defense, “Directive No. 3000.09, Autonomy Weapons Systems,” Nov. 1, 2012 (as revised).

– Chris Jenks and Rain Liivoja, “Machine Autonomy and the Constant Care Obligation,” ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy, Dec. 11, 2018.