In this episode, we reflect on how Dharmic traditions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, engaged with principles of humanity in warfare long before the codification of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) with the Geneva Conventions. Joined by Dr. Robert Heinsch, Dr. Raj Balkaran, and Dr. Christina Kilby, we consider key IHL concepts such as collateral damage and proportionality, while reflecting on what ancient philosophies, theologies and laws can teach us about ethical warfare today. By reflecting on various historical roots and traditions of humanitarian principles, the episode seeks to encourage engagement with the evolution and applications of the laws of armed conflict. What role do the principles of humanity, distinction and proportionality play in the law of armed conflict? How does the element of storytelling in the Sanskrit epics contribute to the dissemination of ethical values? How has religion influenced International Humanitarian Law, specifically the implementation of humanitarian principles?

Guests:  

Dr. Robert Heinsch, Associate Professor in International Law at Leiden University

Dr. Raj Balkaran, Scholar of Sanskrit Narrative Literature, Public Intellectual, Online Educator

Dr. Christina Kilby, Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University

Editors: 

Host - Dr Carl Lewis, Researcher in Public International Law, TMC Asser Institute 

Co-host - Wamika Sachdev, Intern, Asser Institute 

Flora Bensadon, Intern, Asser Institute

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has now provided two orders of provisional measures in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) case, following the further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza since the 26th of January 2024. But what are provisional measures? What does it mean to invoke a breach of an obligation owed to the ‘international community’? What implications follow from these proceedings beyond the peace palace? And in what sense could it be argued that the ICJ may be denying reality? In this episode, we discuss all of this and more.

Guests:

Dr León Castellanos-Jankiewicz, Senior Researcher in International Law at the TMC Asser Institute

Dr Shahd Hammouri, Lecturer in Law at the University of Kent

Dr Giulia Pinzauti, Assistant Professor in International Law at Leiden University

Dr Sarah Thin, Assistant Professor in International and European Law at Radboud University

Host:

Dr Carl Lewis, Researcher in Public International Law, TMC Asser Institute

Why do states take maps so seriously? What role do they play in the international legal order? And how do international courts take them into consideration? We discuss all of this and more, with an eye to the ongoing Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) case at the International Court of Justice. 

Guests: 

Dr Yusra Suedi, Lecturer in International Law at the University of Manchester. 

Dr Brendan Plant, Hopkins–Parry Fellow and Director of Studies in Law at Downing College, University of Cambridge. 

Prof Krista Wiegand, Professor in International Relations at the University of Tennessee,  

Mr William Worster, Senior Lecturer at The Hague University of Applied Sciences 

Hosts: 

Dr Carl Lewis, Researcher in Public International Law, TMC Asser Institute 

Ms Miranda Lalla, Student in the Advanced LLM in Public International Law, Leiden University and Intern, TMC Asser Institute 

Related Works:  

Bendel J and Suedi Y, Public Interest Litigation in International Law (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2024).  

Plant B, ‘Arbitral Award of Oct. 3, 1899 (Guy. V. Venez.) (Decision on Jurisdiction) (I.C.J.)’ (2021) 60 International Legal Materials 1112.  

Powell EJ and Wiegand KE, The Peaceful Resolution of Territorial and Maritime Disputes (Oxford University press 2023).  

Riddell A and Plant B, Evidence before the International Court of Justice (British Inst of Internat Comparative Law 2011).  

Suedi Y, ‘Man, Land and Sea: Local Populations in Territorial and Maritime Disputes before the International Court of Justice’ (2021) 20 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 30. 

——, ‘Man, Land and Sea: Local Populations in Territorial and Maritime Disputes before the International Court of Justice’ accessed 8 February 2024. 

Worster WT, ‘The Frailties of Maps as Evidence in International Law’ (2018) 9 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 570.  

——, ‘Maps Serving as Facts of Law in International Law’ (2018) 33 Connecticut Journal of international law 278. 

In this two-part episode, Carl Lewis is joined by an expert panel - Julie Fraser, Victoria Kerr, Sergii Masol, and Owiso Owiso - to unpack some of the political and legal implications of the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova.

In part two, the conversation continues by considering the debate around the crime of aggression and the call for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression and how this relates to the two arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). They further discuss the question of double standards raised as a result of these arrest warrants and their impact on gender stereotypes about men and women in conflict. Finally, they consider whether this is a transformational moment for the ICC and international criminal justice more broadly.

Panelists:

• Julie Fraser - Assistant Professor with the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) and the Montaigne Centre at Utrecht University.
• Victoria Kerr - Consultant with the Asser Institute
• Sergii Masol - Postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cologne
• Owiso Owiso – International lawyer and independent consultant specialising in international criminal law and transitional justice

Resources and recommended reading:

1) O. Owiso - An Aggression Chamber for Ukraine Supported by the Council of Europe - https://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/30/an-aggression-chamber-for-ukraine-supported-by-the-council-of-europe/

2) P. Labuda - Beyond rhetoric: Interrogating the Eurocentric critique of international criminal law’s selectivity in the wake of the 2022 Ukraine invasion - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/beyond-rhetoric-interrogating-the-eurocentric-critique-of-international-criminal-laws-selectivity-in-the-wake-of-the-2022-ukraine-invasion/BD9D81E2CFA79A7930769DD0F18BBA63

3) S. Masol - Ukraine and the International Criminal Court: Between Realpolitik and Post-truth Politics - https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/20/1/167/6580701

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by individuals in their personal capacity are their own and do not reflect the views or positions of their respective organizations.

In this two-part episode, Carl Lewis is joined by an expert panel - Julie Fraser, Victoria Kerr, Sergii Masol, and Owiso Owiso -  to unpack some of the political and legal implications of the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova.

In part one, they discuss the background to the ICC Arrest Warrants and the role of immunity and jurisdiction. They address the question of head of state immunity and the practical considerations of the arrest warrants. They also deliberate on the reaction to these arrest warrants in Ukraine and Russia and the choice of charges raised by the ICC.

Panelists:

• Julie Fraser - Assistant Professor with the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) and the Montaigne Centre at Utrecht University.
• Victoria Kerr - Consultant with the Asser Institute
• Sergii Masol - Postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cologne
• Owiso Owiso – International lawyer and independent consultant specialising in international criminal law and transitional justice

Resources and recommended reading:

1) O. Owiso - An Aggression Chamber for Ukraine Supported by the Council of Europe -  https://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/30/an-aggression-chamber-for-ukraine-supported-by-the-council-of-europe/

2) P. Labuda - Beyond rhetoric: Interrogating the Eurocentric critique of international criminal law’s selectivity in the wake of the 2022 Ukraine invasion - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/beyond-rhetoric-interrogating-the-eurocentric-critique-of-international-criminal-laws-selectivity-in-the-wake-of-the-2022-ukraine-invasion/BD9D81E2CFA79A7930769DD0F18BBA63

3) S. Masol -  Ukraine and the International Criminal Court: Between Realpolitik and Post-truth Politics - https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/20/1/167/6580701

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by individuals in their personal capacity are their own and do not reflect the views or positions of their respective organizations.

In this episode, Prof. Tanja Aalberts and Dr Sofia Stolk share their research on the ‘building’ of the international community - The Peace Palace. What role did a curious ritual of gift-giving play in constituting the international community? What transnational, bureaucratic and monetary considerations (and bickering) were at play in the construction of the Peace Palace?

If you want to read more about what is discussed in this episode, please check out the articles by our guests below- (both open access):

T. Aalberts. and S. Stolk. Building (of) the international community: a history of the Peace Palace through transnational gifts and local bureaucracy

T. Aalberts. and S. Stolk. The Peace Palace: Building (of) The International Community

And also have a look at the Legal Sightseeing website: www.legalsightseeing.org

In this episode, Dr Lucas Roorda joins us to discuss the Kiobel v Shell case, and the story behind the lawsuit that was dismissed by the Hague District Court in 2022. In particular, we discuss the procedural history of the decision, transnational litigation and how this case may be considered to illustrate procedural unfairness at play between individuals and corporations.

Decision:

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:2449

Disclaimer by Dr Roorda:

During the podcast, the ‘Southern DC Circuit’ was mentioned in deciding Kiobel, but it was the Southern District Court of NY (SDNY), and the 2nd Circuit on appeal. It was also mentioned that Kavanaugh was on the Circuit Court deciding Kiobel on appeal, but that is not correct – Kavanaugh was the dissenting judge on the DC Circuit in Doe v. Exxon (I), the case that created the Circuit split with Kiobel.

In this episode, Carl discusses the International Court of Justice’s 1955 Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) judgment with Dr Péter D. Szigeti of the University of Alberta. What is special about this case? What questions has it left open? And ought the ICJ reconsider the role international law perhaps should play in respect to certain questions concerning the nationality of individuals?

Judgments

Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) - 

Literature recommended by Dr Szigeti:

Cindy G. Buys, Nottebohm's Nightmare: Have We Exorcised the Ghosts of WWII Detention Programs or Do They Still Haunt Guantanamo?, 11 Chicago-Kent J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1-73 (2011)

Peter J. Spiro, Nottebohm and 'Genuine Link': Anatomy of a Jurisprudential Illusion, Investment Migration Working Papers IMC-RP2019/1 (2019) 

Atossa Araxa Abrahamian, The Cosmopolites: The Coming of the Global Citizen (2015)

Noora Lori, Offshore Citizens: Permanent Temporary Status in the Gulf (2019)