Created with Sketch.
55 minutes | 5 days ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 21: Yasuyuki Yoshida on Japanese Perspectives on the Jus ad Bellum Regime
A conversation with Yasuyuki Yoshida, Professor of International Law at Takaoka University in Toyama Japan, and former Capt.(N) in the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force, discusses 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 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, but in 2014 the government "reinterpreted" it to relax its constraints. We discuss how the new policy relates to the jus ad bellum. 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. Fascinating conversation! For the materials discussed, visit our website at: https://jibjabpodcast.com
61 minutes | 22 days ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 20 - Rebecca Ingber on Legally Sliding into War
A conversation 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! For links to materials and reading recommendations, visit our website at: http://jibjabpodcast.com.
50 minutes | a month ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 19: Sarah Holewinski on U.S. Mitigation of Harm to Civilians in Armed Conflict
A conversation with Sarah Holewinski, the Washington Director at Human Rights Watch, and formerly the Director of CIVIC (Civilians in Conflict). In between those two roles she served under then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, and as special advisor on human rights in the Chairman's Office of the Joint Staff in the Department of Defense. We begin by discussing an essay Sarah published in Foreign Affairs in 2013, in which she argued that the U.S. could do much more to mitigate harm to civilians in the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it had ethical and strategically self-interested reasons for doing so. She revisited the issue in a very recent blog post in Just Security, in which she argued that little has changed. Drawing on her experience in the Pentagon, we explore how and why the U.S. has failed to establish either formal policy or leadership positions within DoD to ensure greater protection for civilians; as well as why there is a tendency in the military to deny any and all claims of civilian harm, and a general failure to adequately investigate such claims or accept outside evidence in support of them. Finally, we discuss a simulation that she designed which revealed a rather disturbing tendency on the part of government officials to take positions on issues that they thought were expected of their role, rather than positions that they thought were right. For links to materials and reading recommendations, visit our website at: http://jibjabpodcast.com.
65 minutes | 2 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 18: Mary Ellen O'Connell on the Invalidity of Imminence
A conversation with Mary Ellen O'Connell, of the University of Notre Dame Law School. We discuss her recent focus on that the concept of "imminence" and the doctrine of self-defense in international law, through the lens of the killing of Iranian General Qassim Soleimani. Starting with just war theory and the natural law foundations of international law, right through to the text and intent of the UN Charter and current state practice, O'Connell argues that anticipatory self-defense is not lawful, that the concept of imminence has no place in the doctrine of self-defense, and moreover that it has undermined the narrow exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force. In doing so, however, she makes a broader argument that our approach to security must be more holistic and comprehensive, and it should reject the purely realist and positivist assumptions that have driven recent policy. For materials and reading recommendations, see: http://jibjabpodcast.com
71 minutes | 2 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 17: Nessa Interviews Martin on Climate Change and the Jus ad Bellum Regime
Guest host Jasmin Nessa of Liverpool University Law School interviews Craig Martin of Washburn University School of Law on how the climate change crisis is likely to implicate the laws of war. In particular, Martin argues that as the crisis deepens, and not only the consequences but the causes of climate change are viewed as threats to national security, there will be pressure to relax the jus ad bellum regime to allow for the threat or use of force against "climate rogue states." These arguments will be persuasive but dangerous, not only increasing the incidence of war, but also being counterproductive to the climate change crisis efforts -- and so we must begin to discuss the issues now, before the pressure mounts. For more info on the episode and for links to the related material, visit http://jibjabpodcast.com.
72 minutes | 3 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 16: Terry Gill on Self-Defense Against Non-State Actors
A conversation with Prof. Terry Gill of the University of Amsterdam, Center for International Law, on the use of force in self-defense against non-state actors (NSAs), within the territory of states that exercise no control over the NSA but which do not consent to the use of force - a familiar but hot subject of debate. We discuss Terry's recent work, which places the principle of necessity at the center of the analysis of these issues, and thus offers some different perspectives on the so-called unwilling or unable doctrine, and we also revisit his earliest work on the Nicaragua v. USA judgment of the ICJ. For more info on the episode and for links to the related material, visit http://jibjabpodcast.com.
73 minutes | 3 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 15: Michael Schmitt on Cyber Operations and the Laws of War
A conversation with Prof. Michael Schmitt, Professor of Law at the University of Reading, the United States Military Academy at West Point, and the U.S. Naval War College, on the development of international law relating to cyber operations, and the recent state declarations on how the jus ad bellum and international humanitarian law apply to cyber ops. We discuss some of the problems and issues raised by trying to adapt these legal regimes in order to govern cyber ops effectively, and the threat that such efforts may pose to the integrity of the legal regimes themselves.
64 minutes | 4 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 14: Federica Paddeu on Consent as a Justification for the Use of Force
A conversation with Prof. Federica Paddeu of Cambridge University in England, on how best to understand the operation of consent as a justification for the use of force in international law - is it part of or intrinsic to the prohibition on the use of force itself? Or is it extrinsic, a separate and independent exception or justification for the use of force? Consider how consent operates quite differently in the crimes of rape and battery. The answer to the question has important implications for how we think about and understand the use of force itself, as well as for the operation of the justification in practice.
71 minutes | 5 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 13: Douglas Guilfoyle on the Australian Inquiry into War Crimes in Afghanistan
A conversation with Prof. Douglas Guilfoyle of the University of New South Wales, Canberra, on the Inquiry of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into alleged war crimes committed by Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan, delving into the nature of the offenses, issues of command responsibility, structural and cultural causes of the misconduct, and the influence of the Rome Statute and the ICC in Australia's actions
68 minutes | 6 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 12: Tom Ruys on the Exercise of Self-Defense to Recover Occupied Territory
A conversation with Prof. Tom Ruys of Ghent University, in which we re-examine the positions he took in his famous book on armed attack and self-defense, and then discuss the debate he has recently sparked around the question of whether states may use force in self-defense to recover occupied territory, looking specifically at whether Azerbaijan could justify its recent seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh as a valid exercise of self-defense. Finally, we also talk about the relationship between economic sanctions and the collective security regime.
57 minutes | 6 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 11: Catherine O'Rourke on the Rights of Women in Armed Conflict
A conversation with Dr. Catherine O'Rourke of Ulster University School of Law in Northern Ireland, on her new book, "The Rights of Women in Armed Conflict Under International Law." We discuss how four distinct regimes, IHL, international criminal law, human rights law, and the UN Security Council, interact, in both theory and practice, in the protection of women's rights in armed conflict, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the various regimes, and whether the synergies and mutual support among the regimes outweigh the conflicts and gaps that they create in the legal protections for women in armed conflict. A tour de force.
65 minutes | 7 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 10: Eliav Lieblich on the Humanization of Jus ad Bellum
A conversation with Prof. Eliav Lieblich of Tel Aviv University, in which he takes a recent UN Human Rights Committee General Comment, as a point of departure for analyzing the relatively unexplored relationship between international human rights law and the legal regime that governs the state use of force. Does an act of aggression by a state infringe human rights law as well as violate the jus ad bellum regime? Do governments contemplating the use of force in self-defense have to consider human rights obligations to its own citizens, and those of the state against which it is using force? Fascinating questions with important implications, examined from a doctrinal, theoretical, and philosophical perspective.
76 minutes | 7 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 9: Oona Hathaway on War Powers, and Rethinking the Scope of National Security
A conversation with Prof. Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School on the theory and practice of the domestic law constraints on the use of force, including the different ways in which the War Powers Resolution in the U.S. could and should be amended, the relationship between war powers and international law, and how Congress could reassert its powers over decisions to engage in armed conflict. In addition, we talk about how crises such as the Coronavirus pandemic and climate change, should cause us to re-think the scope and character of national security priorities and policy.
67 minutes | 8 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 8: Craig Forcese on the Caroline Incident
A conversation with Prof. Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa on his book "Destroying the Caroline," in which we discuss the history of the Caroline Incident, how and why it influenced the development of the doctrine of self-defense, what that says about international law itself, and how the Caroline Incident is used and abused in current debates around such issues as anticipatory self-defense and the unwilling or unable doctrine. We also talk briefly about Canadian national security law, and how it compares to that of other countries.
57 minutes | 8 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 7: Alonso Gurmendi Dunkelberg on Latin American Approaches to the Laws of War
A conversation with Prof. Alonso Gurmendi Dunkelberg of Universidad del Pacifico, on Latin American approaches to jus ad bellum and non-intervention - ranging from the origins and development of Latin American thinking in the 19th Century, through the under-appreciated importance of the Montevideo Convention, to how one should interpret Latin American responses to recent uses of force and interventions.
60 minutes | 8 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 6: Monica Hakimi on the Informal Regulation of Jus ad Bellum
A conversation with Prof. Monica Hakimi of the University of Michigan Law School, on how the U.N. Security Council's tacit support for state use of force that would otherwise be unlawful, should be understood as being an "informal regulation" that modifies the standard rules of the jus ad bellum regime. The conversation explores case studies, normative implications of the argument, and whether it is consistent with the rule of law.
55 minutes | 9 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 5: Eric Talbot Jensen on Autonomous Weapons Systems
A conversation with Prof. Eric Talbot Jensen of Brigham Young University Law School - Jensen argues that the law of armed conflict does not require human judgment in making targeting decisions, and thus fully autonomous weapons are not per se unlawful, and that research and development of such weapons should not be prohibited. We explore whether ethical considerations should nonetheless affect decisions to develop machines programmed to kill humans.
67 minutes | 9 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 4 - Ashley Deeks on AI and the Laws of War
A conversation with Prof. Ashley Deeks of the University of Virginia School of Law - Deeks explains how AI and machine learning may implicate the laws of war, from assisting states in decisions on the use of force and self-defense, to increasing compliance with the law of armed conflict on the battlefield, and even the coding of the IHL rules and principles into the AI systems operating or interfacing with weapons systems.
63 minutes | 10 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 3 - Adil Haque on Aggression and Self-Defense
A conversation with Prof. Adil Haque of Rutgers Law School - Haque explains how a review of the negotiating history for the UN Charter suggests a relationship among the prohibition on the use of force, self-defense, and acts of aggression, that is quite different from current views, with important implications for a number of aspects of the doctrine of self-defense, including anticipatory self-defense, the nature of armed attack, and the role of the security council.
34 minutes | 10 months ago
JIB/JAB - Episode 1: Introduction by Craig Martin
Craig Martin, the host of the podcast, explains the objectives, scope, and format of this podcast series, and then goes on to provide a brief overview of the main legal regimes that comprise the "laws of war," principally the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello regimes, and how they relate to one another. Visit the website for more info.
Terms of Service
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
© Stitcher 2021