Podcasts about ihl

Across Africa, norms regulating the conduct of hostilities long predate the codification of modern international humanitarian law (IHL). The ICRC Tool on African traditions and the preservation of humanity in warfare highlights how many African societies developed rules limiting violence, protecting civilians, and preserving human dignity during conflict. These traditions resonate strongly with contemporary IHL principles and offer important insights for current efforts to protect children affected by armed conflict. At a time when children continue to face killing and maiming, attacks on schools and hospitals, recruitment, displacement, and profound psychological harm, grounding humanitarian protection in both legal obligations and culturally rooted values can strengthen efforts to uphold humanity during war. In this post, Professor Robert Doya Nanima, Member of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and Special Rapporteur on Children Affected by Armed Conflict, reflects on the relevance of the ICRC Tool through the lens of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. Drawing connections between African traditions, IHL, and African Union frameworks such as Agenda 2040 and Agenda 2063, he argues that the protection of children in conflict requires breaking down institutional silos and placing children at the center of humanitarian action.

Episode #545: The promise of justice for war crimes in Myanmar is far from perfect, says Dr. Stuart Casey-Maslen, a leading legal expert on disarmament and international humanitarian law. The military regime's alleged war crimes continue unchecked, with airstrikes against civilian targets, the destruction of homes, schools, and places of worship, and indiscriminate use of landmines exacting a cruel toll. On a different scale, some resistance armed groups have also been accused of war crimes.“Justice can, and sometimes does, catch up with you even many years afterwards,” says Casey-Maslen, who is editor of the Mine Action Review and has written extensively on international law related to landmines. “If a member of the Tatmadaw, or a senior official in the Myanmar government, travels in years to come to one of many countries that have legislation for war crimes or crimes against humanity… that can also be a prosecution of the use of an anti-personnel mine.”Anti-personnel landmines fall into a distinct class of “victim-activated” weapons, which are designed to be detonated by the victim. The deliberate delay between the deployment and detonation also distinguishes landmines from weapons such as firearms or artillery, in which a specific target is chosen and impact is relatively immediate. This delay makes accountability much more difficult, including identifying who laid the mine.Prosecutions for crimes committed in Myanmar face considerable challenges, but the facts of the case remain. “The use by the Tatmadaw and by certain rebel groups, but particularly the use by the Myanmar military, has been indiscriminate,” Casey-Maslen says. “They have committed war crimes through their use of anti-personnel mines. In certain instances, they have forced people to walk through minefields. That is a war crime. That kind of conduct is beyond any rule of IHL, and hopefully one day those who are responsible will be brought to account.”

Across contemporary armed conflicts, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) has emerged as one of the gravest threats to civilians. Urban centres are increasingly sites of hostilities, where the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects causes devastating and often predictable harm. In Africa, where rapid urbanization intersects with persistent insecurity in several regions, the humanitarian consequences are particularly acute. Civilians, essential infrastructure, and long-term development prospects are all at risk, raising urgent questions about how international humanitarian law (IHL) can be better implemented in practice. In this post, Brigadier General (Professor) Dan Kuwali, Chief Strategist, Commandant-Emeritus of the National Defence College-Malawi and Chairperson of the Malawi National International Humanitarian Law Committee, argues that African states should urgently endorse and implement the Political Declaration on EWIPA.  He argues that this approach is not only a humanitarian imperative, but also a strategic decision that strengthens civilian protection, enhances military credibility, and reinforces Africa's collective voice in advancing responsible conduct in contemporary warfare.

In the policy debate on artificial intelligence (AI) in the military domain, there is a growing consensus that international humanitarian law (IHL) must be a central consideration in the design of military AI systems. The imperative to make military AI systems “lawful by design” has, naturally, led to a sharper focus on the role of industry. But what this means in practical terms for AI suppliers – and how states can and should collaborate with industry to strengthen IHL compliance – remains an open question. In this post, Laura Bruun and Netta Goussac from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) argue that while focusing on IHL at the design stage makes sense, it carries the risk that states over-rely on industry to make military “lawful by design”. Efforts to elaborate what it means to make military AI “lawful by design” must be grounded in realistic expectations and limits, as well as clear legal responsibilities.

The Grand Rapids Griffins and Chicago Wolves are set to face off in the AHL Central Division Finals on Thursday May 14th. Andrew Rinaldi joins the show to preview this Central Division rivals who's battles date back to the good ole IHL days. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/hockeytownwestpodcast  Follow for highlights:  X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/HockeytownWpod Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/hockeytownwpod.bsky.social  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hockeytownwestpodcast  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hockeytownwpod  Sponsor: Everything Hockey Clothing Company: Use code WEST at everythinghockey.com for $3 off your entire order  #gogrg #ahl #americanhockeyleague #grandrapids #griffins #grandrapidsgriffins #Cossa #Danielson #Lombardi #Watson #DanWatson #toledo #toledowalleye #ourfishourfight #lgrw #RedWings #AxelSandinPellikka #treyaugustine #MSU #DetroitRedWings #Hockeytown #NHL #Hockey #HockeyLife #IceHockey #HockeyFans #RedWingsNation #DetroitSports #RedWingsHockey #LetsGoWings #DetroitVSEverybody #GoWings #yzerplan #yzerman #steveyzerman #NHLTradeDeadline #TradeDeadline #NHLRumors #NHLTrades #NHLDeadline #NHLTradeTalk #TradeRumors #HockeyRumors #NHLDiscussion #HockeyNews #NHLUpdates #NHLPlayoffs #StanleyCup #RoadToTheCup #QuestForTheCup #StanleyCupPlayoffs #NHLBracket #PlayoffPush #NHLWildcard #WinOrGoHome #Game7Mindset #ChasingTheCup #PlayoffHockey #ClutchHockey #StanleyCupFinals #NHLPlayoffHunt #BigGameMoments #HockeySeason #CupContenders #PlayoffMomentum #WildCardRace #MustWin #NHLHighlights #HockeyPodcast #HockeyTalk #SportsTalk #NHLNews #GoalieShowdown #PetrMrazek #AxelSandinPellikka #ClutchPerformance #HockeyAnalysis #NHLTonight #HockeyContent #SportsViral #HockeyCulture #GameDay #HockeyCommunity #BigPlays #NHLHighlights #HockeyPodcast #StanleyCupPlayoffs #NHLNews #HockeyTalk #HockeyLife #SportsTalk #nhlrumours #HockeyAnalysis #HockeyContent #RedWingsNation #DetroitSports #GoWings #caldercup #playoffs #Tralmaks #  Draft Kings: Use code THPN when betting with Draft Kings  Draft Kings Disclaimer: Call (800) 327-5050 or visit gamblinghelplinema.org (MA), Gambling Problem? Call 877- 8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY), If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (CO/IL/IN/LA/MD/MI/NJ/OH/PA/TN/WV/WY), 1-800-NEXT STEP (AZ), 1-800-522-4700 (KS/NH), 888-789-7777/visit ccpg.org (CT), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), visit OPGR.org (OR), or 1-888-532-3500 (VA) 21+ (18+ NH/WY). Physically present in AZ/CO/CT/IL/IN/IA/KS/LA(select parishes)/MA/MD/MI/NH/NJ/NY/OH/OR/PA/TN/VA/WV/WY only. VOID IN ONT. Eligibility restrictions apply. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (KS). Bet $5 Get $150 offer (void in NH/OR): Valid 1 per new customer. Min. $5 deposit. Min $5 pre-game moneyline bet. Bet must win. $150 issued as six (6) $25 bonus bets. Promotional offer period Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

During the last decade, attacks against hospitals have been a hallmark of almost every conflict. What humanitarian medical practitioners have witnessed and denounced for years has become alarmingly routine. International humanitarian law (IHL) is sometimes criticized for failing to protect the very purpose that justified its own existence, particularly when the states responsible for its enforcement remain incapable or unwilling to stand up for the protection of medical facilities in armed conflicts. In this post, Claude Maon, Legal Director for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), highlights the need to build consensus around the specific protection of the medical mission under IHL. She calls for good faith interpretation in applying these rules to ensure the effective protection of hospitals by all actors in real situations of attack. In doing so, she underscores that attacks on hospitals are not inevitable and argues that this persistent trend of violations can only be reversed if states respect the law by adopting good operational practices to protect the medical mission, alongside ensuring accountability for attacks affecting medical facilities in armed conflict.

International humanitarian law (IHL) has long been critiqued for its gendered fault lines, specifically the marginalization of violence and harm to women and girls during armed conflict, laid bare by the lacunae of protection found in the normative content of the Geneva Conventions. The inadequacy of this normative protection finds a parallel in the Pictet Commentary, whose contours reflect patriarchy, entrenched gender stereotypes, and a lack of awareness of, and disregard for, the vulnerabilities, positionalities and participation of women in war. The limitations of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV), in particular, have been substantively explored by feminist scholars over several decades. In this post, part of a joint symposium on the updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention with EJIL:Talk! and Just Security, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin undertakes a close examination of GC IV's Article 27 on the treatment of protected persons, offering an assessment of the extent to which a revised and updated Commentary can overcome the Convention's structural limitations. The answer, she suggests, is mixed. The Commentary is rigorous, expansive and determined, but it remains constrained by the text itself. While progressive interpretative developments help narrow the gap, they cannot fully remedy the gendered DNA of the Conventions as a whole, a challenge that will unfold over decades of sustained work.

Across the world, essential civilian services increasingly depend on information and communication technologies (ICTs). These same technologies are also reshaping the conduct of armed conflict. As warfare becomes more digitalized, a critical question emerges: how can civilians be protected in an interconnected battlespace? Ensuring the faithful implementation of international humanitarian law in relation to ICT activities is central to this challenge. In this post, Wen Zhou, ICRC Legal Adviser with the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law (Global IHL Initiative), draws on discussions under the ICT workstream of the Initiative to highlight key humanitarian and legal questions arising from ICT activities in armed conflict, and to reflect ongoing efforts by states and other stakeholders to uphold the protections afforded by IHL and strengthen its implementation in practice.

By the end of 2024, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that 123.2 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order. If a large-scale conflict erupts, the intensity, scale and tempo of military operations will only worsen this trend, impacting not only those displaced but also receiving communities, and potentially those staying behind. International humanitarian law's (IHL) rules seek to prevent displacement due to armed conflict – while respecting people's agency and genuine will to move – and to reduce harms to civilians, including displaced populations.  In this post, part of the “Complying with IHL in large-scale conflict” series, ICRC Legal Advisers Matt Pollard and Helen Obregón explore the humanitarian challenges related to movement, mass displacement and the rupturing of family ties that would inevitably arise in such conflicts. It also looks at some of the practical measures that states can – and should – take to be prepared to meet these challenges and to comply with their obligations under IHL and under other relevant bodies of international law. Advance planning, already in peacetime, is essential for IHL to provide effective protection if such a conflict breaks out.

I am not sure, but I think that I mention the Laws and Customs of War in about half of my episodes. (Clausewitz, of course features in almost EVERY episode -- except this one.) There is one part of the Law of War that is infrequently discussed. So infrequent that the term International Humanitarian Law (IHL) doesn't even include it. The International Committee of the Red Cross even says that it is of little importance! That nearly forgotten part of the Law of War is the Law of Neutrality. I do not agree with the comment in the ICRC's IHL database tha, “the traditional law of neutrality has lost much of its former importance.” I believe that the armed conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and those in the middle east reveal problems which result when the law of neutrality is forgotten or abused. I believe these conflicts also represent an opportunity to reassert that branch of the Law of War, but only if States and nations have the courage to do so. As usual, the content of this podcast is entirely my own opinion, and does not represent to position of the U.S. Department of Defense or any other orgaization I am or have previously been associated with   References:   of Defense, DoD Law of War Manual, June 2015, Updated July 2023 ICRC, How does Law Protect in War, p.3 https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/icrc-0739-part-i.pdf   International Committee of the Red Cross IHL Databases: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/hague-conv-v-1907   Music: Kiilstofte, P. Freedom Fighters, Machinamasound (Licensed)  

When armed conflict ends, education does not always return with it. In many post-conflict settings, schools remain closed long after ceasefires, while children stay at home, enter work, remain displaced or navigate unsafe environments. Education systems remain constrained by destroyed infrastructure, militarization, unexploded ordnance, trauma and fear. Although international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) require the continuity of education even during armed conflict, schooling is frequently disrupted in practice, raising questions about how education can be safely restored after conflict. IHL regulates the conduct of hostilities and contains important protections for children and access to education during armed conflict. Lessons drawn from these protections can help inform recovery decisions as societies transition from conflict to peace, including after the cessation of hostilities, when recovery begins but IHL may still apply. In this post, as part of our Emerging Voices series, Geeta Mahapatra proposes a framework to facilitate children's safe return to education, centred on child-specific harm assessments, safe access and inclusive recovery. It contends that stronger compliance with IHL rules protecting schools and children during armed conflict helps preserve the conditions necessary for restoring education in post-conflict settings.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision-support systems are increasingly embedded upstream of the use of force, shaping how military actors plan attacks, assessing effects, and anticipating harm. In contemporary urban warfare, where civilian infrastructure forms complex and deeply interconnected systems, these tools are increasingly used to guide decisions with far-reaching humanitarian consequences. This raises critical questions for international humanitarian law (IHL), which requires parties to anticipate and mitigate foreseeable civilian harm when applying the principles of proportionality and precaution, including indirect, cumulative and systemic effects on civilian infrastructure. In this post, independent legal researcher Yéelen Marie Geairon argues that while AI-enabled decision-support systems do not alter the legal rules governing attacks, they significantly reshape how foreseeability is operationalized in practice. By structuring what decision-makers are able to anticipate, compare and justify ex ante, AI systems recalibrate the factual basis of legal judgment, while also introducing new risks linked to data gaps, opacity and over-reliance on technical outputs. The protection of civilian infrastructure in AI-enabled warfare therefore depends less on technological performance than on the legal discipline, transparency and human judgment with which these tools are embedded in decision-making processes.

The ICRC continues to witness unacceptable levels of suffering when the law designed to protect families, prevent people from going missing, and ensure the dignified and respectful treatment of the dead is disregarded. At the same time, we have also documented countless, daily efforts by parties to armed conflict to prevent family separation, clarify the fate and whereabouts of missing people, and treat the dead with dignity and respect. This is a humanitarian imperative, a legal obligation that should be a priority of any party to an armed conflict. In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Tilman Rodenhäuser and Ximena Londoño present key findings of a recent ICRC study, “Non-State Armed Groups and the Separated, Missing and Dead: Obligations Under International Humanitarian Law and Examples of How to Implement Them”. Drawing on the doctrine and practice of 64 non-state armed groups (NSAGs) across the world, the study offers unique insights into practical measures that NSAGs can take to implement IHL and protect missing people and their families. This post provides a snapshot of the study's main findings and operational relevance.

Loren Voss, Public Service Fellow at Lawfare, sits down with Stuart Casey Maslen, the head of the IHL in Focus project at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. They discuss the Geneva Academy's “IHL in Focus Report” covering all the major armed conflicts around the world, the role of new technology such as drones, the threats to IHL compliance and accountability, and the possibility of new treaty rules.Maslen describes the 20+ year degradation of IHL and trends across conflicts, particularly regarding the use of advanced technology. He laments that while technology allows for the possibility of more precise targeting of valid targets, the realities on the ground don't always reflect that. Voss and Maslen discuss challenges to enforcement and accountability, but Maslen remains optimistic that protection of civilians in armed conflict can get better in the future.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

More than seven decades after their adoption, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 remain foundational to contemporary international humanitarian law (IHL). Efforts to update their Commentaries testify to both the resilience of the Geneva Conventions and their enduring relevance in modern armed conflicts. Yet the story of their making is inseparable from the longer history of the law of armed conflict, which developed in the late nineteenth century within a deeply hierarchical international legal order. From the perspective of colonized states and territories, that history reveals a persistent divide between European and non-European worlds, a divide that shaped not only general international law but also key features of the Geneva Conventions themselves. In this post, part of a joint symposium on the updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention with EJIL:Talk! and Just Security, Associate Professor Srinivas Burra revisits the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions against the backdrop of the Second World War, the creation of the United Nations, and the onset of decolonization. Focusing on the Fourth Convention's regime of occupation and on Common Article 3, he examines these developments from a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) perspective, accounting for the structural legacies of empire in international law. He argues that while these provisions marked important advances, they also carried forward earlier exclusions embedded in colonial conceptions of sovereignty. Read in this light, the Conventions represent both a decisive break in humanitarian protection and a continuation of hierarchies inherited from the nineteenth century.

Islamic legal traditions and the modern framework of international humanitarian law (IHL) emerged from different contexts and traditions, but they share many underlying values – such as restraint, humanity, and the protection of those not (or no longer) participating in hostilities. Islamic law therefore offers a distinct but complementary perspective to IHL on the sanctity of life (ḥurmat al-nafs), particularly in contexts where international legal frameworks lack traction, understanding, or perceived legitimacy. In this post, and as part of our Emerging Voices series, legal researcher Alannah Travers explores how Islamic law, as its own coherent and longstanding legal tradition, offers a parallel framework of moral constraint during armed conflict. She argues that better understanding these Islamic legal norms can provide stronger grounds for compliance with protective norms, deepening our collective understanding of the right to life in war.

Naval warfare has undergone dramatic transformation, expanding across multiple domains and exposing civilian seafarers, infrastructure, and global supply chains to new and evolving risks. As modern maritime operations become faster, more complex, and more interconnected, long-standing legal frameworks face growing pressure to keep pace. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Abby Zeith examines the changing character of naval warfare and questions whether the maritime domain should still be treated as exceptional. She explores how technological, operational, and geopolitical shifts intersect with existing international humanitarian law (IHL), and why renewed clarity from states is essential to protect civilian shipping, seafarers, and populations ashore.

The International Criminal Court recently issued its first conviction for gender persecution as a crime against humanity, alongside related convictions for rape as a war crime under international humanitarian law (IHL). These convictions signal expanding efforts to hold perpetrators accountable for violations committed during conflict, including against women and girls as well as on the basis of gender. This recognition aligns with the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda created by UN Security Resolution 1325. Yet, despite the clear intersection of IHL and WPS, these two frameworks have been largely siloed from one another. With the WPS agenda celebrating its twenty-fifth anniversary against a backdrop of global anti-rights and anti-gender backlash, it's more urgent than ever these frameworks are brought together. In this post, Jessica Anania, a Conflict & Security Fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, outlines the strategic advantages of closer coordination between IHL and WPS when it comes to strengthening protection and accountability for women and girls. Key benefits of bridging IHL and WPS include filling in gaps within IHL's existing protections to better reflect the realities of women and girls before, during and after conflict; expanding IHL's impact through stronger recognition of gender crimes; countering non-compliance; and strengthening awareness of women and girls' needs by addressing gender stereotypes inherent to IHL.

AI-powered technologies are transforming the nature of warfare, with profound implications for European security and the EU's regulatory framework.Thomas de Waal, Raluca Csernatoni, and Jessica Dorsey examine how these dual-use systems blur civilian and military lines, and their implications for strategic, legal, and ethical accountability.[00:00:00] Intro, [00:01:40] The Evolution of AI on the Battlefield, [00:08:48] Responsibility Gaps on the Use of AI, [00:20:48] Can Europe Play a Role in Regulating AI?Raluca Csernatoni, October 30, 2025, “Corporate Geopolitics: When Billionaires Rival States,” Strategic Europe, Carnegie Europe.Raluca Csernatoni et al., September 1, 2025, “Tech Diplomacy 2.0: Examining the Intersections Between Industry and Governments in International Relations,” International Journal of Cyber Diplomacy.Raluca Csernatoni et al., September 1, 2025, “The Future of Foreign Policy in the Age of Emerging and Disruptive Technologies,” EU Cyber Direct.Raluca Csernatoni et al., August 11, 2025, “Myth, Power, and Agency: Rethinking Artificial Intelligence, Geopolitics and War,” Minds and Machines.Raluca Csernatoni, May 20, 2025, “The EU's AI Power Play: Between Deregulation and Innovation,” Carnegie Europe.Raluca Csernatoni, July 17, 2024, “Governing Military AI Amid a Geopolitical Minefield,” Carnegie Europe.Jessica Dorsey, January 13, 2026, "The erosion of human(e) judgement in targeting? Quantification logics, AI-enabled decision support systems and proportionality assessments in IHL," Cambridge University Press.Jessica Dorsey, December 14, 2025, “Drug Boats, Drone Strikes and the Dangers of Avoiding Mirrors,” Opinio Juris.Jessica Dorsey, June 27, 2025, “AI-Enabled Decision-Support Systems in the Joint Targeting Cycle: Legal Challenges, Risks, and the Human(e) Dimension,” International Law Studies, Vol. 106.Jessica Dorsey, May 2025, “Proportionality under Pressure: AI-Based DecisionSupport Systems, the Reasonable Commander Standard and Human(e) Judgment in Targeting,” The Hague Center for Strategic Studies.

As cyber operations are increasingly taking place during armed conflicts, and this trend is likely to continue, certain specific protections afforded under IHL and identified in the physical world by the distinctive emblems of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal must also be visible in an environment the drafters of the very first Geneva Convention in 1864 could never have imagined. In this post, Samit D'Cunha, Legal Adviser at the ICRC, and Mauro Vignati, Technical Adviser at the ICRC, examine the rationale behind the Digital Emblem Project and the significant progress made in recent months. Drawing on ongoing standardization efforts and a growing list of supporters of the project, this post explores how a simple, globally recognizable marker is being developed to help distinguish specifically protected medical and humanitarian assets online.

On the latest episode of the Flames Alumni Krahnicles, it's part two of our chat with Calgary product Archie Henderson! And even though he never played for the Flames, as a Calgarian and former NHLer, he is a welcome member of the alumni! Listen in as Archie chats with Flames Alumni members Brent Krahn and Colin Patterson about his time playing in the minors through both the AHL and IHL! Hosted by Pat Steinberg, Archie also looks back at his different appearances in the NHL!The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.  https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/flames-talk/Get full Flames games and great shows like Quick 60: The Stamps Show, Wranglers Watch and more ON DEMAND.

The ICRC's 2005 study on customary international humanitarian law – along with the free, public database launched five years later – arrived at a moment when the legal landscape of armed conflict was rapidly shifting. Mandated by the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the study set out to map the customary rules governing contemporary warfare by systematically analyzing global state practice and opinio juris. Twenty years on, with more than 130 armed conflicts active worldwide, reassessing the study's methodological contributions, its evidence base, and its impact on the regulation of both international and non-international armed conflicts offers a timely lens on how customary IHL continues to underpin protections for people affected by war. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Claudia Maritano and members of the British Red Cross-ICRC customary IHL research team reflect on how the study's rigorous methodology, global scope, and identification of 161 customary rules helped clarify gaps left by treaties, especially in non-international armed conflicts, and strengthen the practical application of IHL.

Host Sarah Henry is joined by international lawyer Eitan Diamond, who specialises in international humanitarian law and human rights law. As Manager and Senior Legal Expert at the IHL Centre, Eitan leads efforts in the Israeli-Palestinian context.   Discussing the ongoing challenges faced by human rights organisations, he speaks about Israeli-imposed restrictions on humanitarian and human rights groups operating in the region and emphasises the crucial role of civic society in holding governments accountable under international law.    Learn more about working in the field of IHL and IHRL as this episode explores the intersection of international law, justice, and activism, offering insights on how we should continue to push for change and accountability.    About Eitan Diamond     Eitan Diamond is an international lawyer specialising in international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law. He serves as Manager and Senior Legal Expert at the IHL Centre overseeing its work in the Israeli-Palestinian context. He also serves on the managerial boards of the NGOs Public Committee against Torture in Israel and Parents against Child Detention, and on the editorial board of the Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies.   Eitan has previously worked, inter alia, as an expert consultant for UNICEF, for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and at the research centre Forensic Architecture; as Executive Director of the NGO Gisha; as a Legal Advisor for the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied Territories; and as Researcher and Legal Advisor for the NGO B'Tselem.   Alongside his work as a practitioner, Eitan engages in academic research and has a range of publications on IHL-related themes. His academic qualifications include a PhD from the Meitar Centre for Advanced Legal Studies at Tel Aviv University's Faculty of Law; an LLM in Public International Law from the London School of Economics and Political Science, where he was a Chevening Scholar; and an LLB from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also a recipient of a Diploma in Human Rights awarded by the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.        To find out more about the work and organisations discussed in this episode, please see the following links:   For general information about the IHL Centre's work in Israel Palestine: https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/jerusalem/  Links to our publications are available here: https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/news/?category=israel-palestine-publication   An Easy Guide on IHL for professionals working in the oPt: https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/news/easy-guide-to-international-humanitarian-law/  A resource for our publications regarding the hostilities and violence in the oPt: https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/jerusalem/2023-2024-hostilities-escalating-violence-opt/  A resource for our publications regarding legal proceedings before international court relating to Israel and the oPt: https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/jerusalem/proceedings-before-international-courts-relating-to-israel-and-the-opt/  A resource for our publications regarding shrinking civic and humanitarian space in Israel-Palestine: https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/jerusalem/shrinking-space/  You can also follow Eitan Diamond's work here:  LinkedIn and SSRN

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe D’s[CB] are pushing more taxes while Trump is removing the taxes, the people will decide in the end. As illegals are deported American workers see jobs coming back. Gov is the entity that increases the prices across the country. Trump is removing the income tax and ready to give dividends to the middle and low income people not the rich. The [DS] has been pushing division, they are trying to pit the people against Kash, Bondi etc. Social media is trying to bring the people down the wrong path. Trump has released the US strategy and is now codifying his executive order as law. Trump is setting everything in motion so the people can take back this country, the people will be liberate him. Economy https://twitter.com/RickyDoggin/status/1997885141990216111  Illinois Republicans introduced several bills this year to stop taxing tips in Illinois, but JB Pritzker, and Illinois Democrats have no interest in providing any tax relief. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1997703409408032937?s=20 https://twitter.com/_emergent_/status/1997862345700499847?s=20 https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1998015706525307152?s=20   VICTORIOUS MANNER. I have settled 8 Wars in 10 months because of the rights clearly given to the President of the United States. If countries didn't think these rights existed, they would have said so, LOUD AND CLEAR! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1997816417413153016?s=20 Political/Rights ICE Launches Armed Raids Across Minnesota Targeting Illegal Somali Nationals Wanted on Federal Warrants ICE has already begun making arrests in what locals call “Somali-land Minnesota,” a region with one of the largest concentrations of Somali immigrants in the United States,     Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara warned residents that masked individuals detaining people in Somali neighborhoods were “possibly kidnapping people,” urging the city's enormous Somali enclave to dial 911 if they encounter law-enforcement activity they “don't recognize.” “If there is anything that is … a violation of someone's human rights or civil rights, excessive force or anything like that, they absolutely have a duty to intervene as police officers,” O'Hara added. https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1997745591032713531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1997745591032713531%7Ctwgr%5E307f0a93a8a06042ad5d66adbb608b3b4cc65312%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fice-launches-armed-raids-across-minnesota-targeting-illegal%2F   subject allegedly assaulted officers but was successfully apprehended. A previously deported female subject fled into a house, which ultimately resulted in her apprehension and several collateral arrests, per sources. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1997375316956676498?s=20 https://twitter.com/AlexanderTabet/status/1996987184260239794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1996987184260239794%7Ctwgr%5E9f3a417fd49065356a991f37feb9d06210c99091%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-5.html1996987184260239794 https://twitter.com/overton_news/status/1997700603301237055?s=20  his appearance with a line Brennan clearly didn't expect. BESSENT: “To be clear, the initial fraud was discovered by the IRS, for which I'm the acting commissioner, it was discovered by IRS criminal investigations unit.” “This was not endogenous that the state of Minnesota decided. We had to go in and clean up the mess for them. This is part of the continued cleanup.” “A lot of money has been transferred from the individuals who committed this fraud, including those who donated to the governor, donated to representative Omar and to AG Ellison.” “They have been transferred to something called MBSs.” “They are wire transfer organizations that are outside the regulated banking system. That money has gone overseas. We are tracking that, both to the Middle East and Somalia to see what the uses of that have been.” BRENNAN: “You have no evidence of that money being used to fuel terrorism at this point? Which is what some conservative writers are alleging.” BESSENT: “That's why it's an investigation. We started it last week. We will see where it goes.” “I can tell you, it's terrible. Representative Omar tried to downplay it. Said it was very…it was very tough to know how this money should be used. She was gaslighting the American people.” “When you come to this country, you have to learn which side of the road to drive on, stop at stop signs and learn not to defraud the American people.” https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1997727923768594758?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1998009509675958422?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1997712517242708339?s=20 DOGE  Geopolitical https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997841818411823248?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997712272009883916?s=20   was called Operation Rubific. The secret mass migration program was revealed by a British High Court earlier today. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1997609494738821618?s=20 https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1997900194655162371?s=20 seekers. Basically, the EU said: stop booting people out before hearing their appeals. Hungary said no thanks. So now Brussels is punishing Hungary for not letting in enough migrants, mostly from Africa and the Middle East, while the rest of the continent watches. The European Court says it’s about “human rights.” Hungary says it’s about borders. You don't have to agree with Hungary to notice what's going on. A country makes a decision, the EU doesn't like it, and suddenly unelected judges are draining your national budget. This is what happens when a “union” turns into a rule-by-lawsuit machine.   https://twitter.com/nettermike/status/1997765685922136281?s=20   is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states. UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly: 1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state's sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected. 2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice. 3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation. No armed conflict = no war crime possible. 4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization's “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking. Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL. 5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime. 6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design. Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime. War/Peace https://twitter.com/InsiderGeo/status/1997834841723908411?s=20 US Issues NATO’s European Members New Self-Defense Deadline European members of NATO have been warned by Washington that they must assume greater responsibility for the alliance’s intelligence operations and missile production – which will require significantly more defense spending by 2027, Reuters has reported. Reuters in its exclusive Friday report said that the United States “wants Europe to take over the majority of NATO’s conventional defense capabilities, from intelligence to missiles, by 2027, Pentagon officials told diplomats in Washington this week, a tight deadline that struck some European officials as unrealistic.” “The message, recounted by five sources familiar with the discussion, including a U.S. official, was conveyed at a meeting in Washington this week of Pentagon staff overseeing NATO policy and several European delegations,” the report continued. The directive was coupled with a warning behind the scenes, reportedly involving Pentagon officials cautioning representatives from several European nations that the US may scale back its role in certain NATO defense efforts if this target and deadline is not met.It was noted in the report that some European officials consider the 2027 goal unrealistic, saying that rapidly substituting American military support would demand far greater investment than current plans and NATO member approved defense budgets allow. Source: zerohedge.com NATO was created by the [DS] https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1997999917801910425?s=20  and Ukraine, but we don’t have a shared view on Donbas,” Zelensky said. Ukraine also insists on a separate security guarantees agreement with Western allies, primarily the U.S. “There is one question that I and all Ukrainians want answered: if Russia starts a war again, what will our partners do?” he added. Zelensky Heads to London for Talks with European Allies  President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was meeting the French, German and British leaders in London on Monday as Kyiv's European allies try to strengthen Ukraine's hand in thorny talks on a U.S.-backed plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was due to gather with Zelenskyy, President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the British leader's 10 Downing St. residence. source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997790753385300463?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997693479313666088?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1997981255200039181?s=20 Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1997987063300251658?s=20 [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1997709276958318942?s=20 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1997771432181522493?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1998030855348883903?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1997771084674765308?s=20   about to learn the hard way that most Texans are very different from her district, her base & her values.” “She'll be pummeled for her progressive socialist agenda & get crushed by the Republican nominee for Senate.” “Looking forward to watching the circus– and KEEPING the US Senate seat red. On the bright side for her, maybe she'll end up with a job on The View!”   Storm the polls, Texas! https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1997818897005695221?s=20 President Trump's Plan    and anyone close to them. When the Democrats overwhelmingly lost the 2024 Presidential Election, and power with it, they, regardless, did everything they could to keep going after the Cuellar family. The Dems were vicious, and all because Henry strongly wanted, correctly, BORDER SECURITY! He was against illegals pouring into our Country, totally unchecked and unvetted. The Congressman didn't want gang members, drug dealers, violent prisoners, people from mental institutions and yes, even murderers, in the good ol' USA. It was all very unfair what they were doing to him and his family, so much so that his daughters wrote me a beautiful letter about their parents (Just posted on TRUTH!). After reading it I decided, in the interest of justice, and based on the daughter's loving request, that I would give Henry and Imelda a Full and Complete Pardon. I never spoke to the Congressman, his wife, or his daughters, but felt very good about fighting for a family that was tormented by very sick and deranged people – They were treated sooo BADLY! I signed the papers, and said to people in the Oval Office that I just did a very good, perhaps life saving, thing. God was very happy with me that day! THEN IT HAPPENED!!! Only a short time after signing the Pardon, Congressman Henry Cuellar announced that he will be “running” for Congress again, in the Great State of Texas (a State where I received the highest number of votes ever recorded!), as a Democrat, continuing to work with the same Radical Left Scum that just weeks before wanted him and his wife to spend the rest of their lives in Prison – And probably still do! Such a lack of LOYALTY, something that Texas Voters, and Henry's daughters, will not like. Oh' well, next time, no more Mr. Nice guy! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP    Trump hating, 60 Minutes “correspondent,” Lesley Stahl, who still owes me an apology from when she attacked me on the show (with serious conviction!), that Hunter Biden's LAPTOP FROM HELL was produced by Russia, not Hunter himself (TOTALLY PROVEN WRONG!), interviewed a very poorly prepared Traitor, who in her confusion made many really stupid statements. My real problem with the show, however, wasn't the low IQ traitor, it was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes, Paramount, would allow a show like this to air. THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President, ME! Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE! Oh well, far worse things can happen. P.S. I hereby demand a complete and total APOLOGY, though far too late to be meaningful, from Lesley Stahl and 60 Minutes for her incorrect and Libelous statements about Hunter's Laptop!!! President DJT https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1997739659724832803?s=20  on the other foot, and there is highly incriminating evidence against the people who instigated the hoaxes, it somehow cannot be used. Just beyond infuriating. STUNNING UPDATE: Jocelyn Ballantine – the Lead Attorney Assigned to J6 Pipe Bomber Case – Notoriously Pressured the Proud Boys to Lie About Trump's Involvement in Jan. 6 or Face Decades in Prison!    Jocelyn Ballantine was one of the Department of Justice attorneys assigned to Michael Flynn's prosecution. The Department admitted altering evidence in the case following a reprimand from the judge. She called this an inadvertent mistake at the time. Ballantine also provided altered documents to Sidney Powell, and submitted an FBI interview report with redactions to information that was crucial to the case, according to En-Wikipedia.  When the US government threw out the case against  General Flynn, Ballantine declined to sign the motion to dismiss the charges against him. She is as crooked as they come. Jocelyn Ballantine was later assigned to the infamous Proud Boys Trial. Ballantine and the Biden prosecutors made up evidence, pressured the defendants to lie to the court, planted evidence in the Proud Boys chat group, and led the charge to send the innocent men to prison for over a decade each.   Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/1997495783168299481?s=20   a grand jury process, and we are issuing – I think we are up to like 75 of 100 subpoenas already – for witnesses. That's what you target first. We also have targets of our investigation. People we think committed acts of criminal conduct… We are not only exposing what they did, but they are frantically – “they,” the media, the mainstream media and those that were involved in the weaponization of justice – are trying to cover it up… You think that's gonna stop me and the deputy here? We're gonna get there. We're already halfway there on a lot of it. I firmly believe that this Comey case is far from over. We are not finished. We are formulating a plan to make sure that we use the Constitution to hold people accountable… These people will not be let off the hook.” Go get em, Kash.  & throwing distractions at them in hopes they will fall. #3925 twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/st Do people really believe the biggest scandal in modern US history will go unpunished [Scot-Free]? Backchannels are important. Patriots stand at the ready [shills whine]. Q Genuinely curious on how, exactly, people expect @kash to provide us with COMPLETE & TOTAL transparency…….but also (simultaneously) protect the integrity of ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS so cases aren't completely dismissed for lack of due process??!

Large-scale armed conflicts consistently sever the systems that sustain civilian life, leaving populations without essential services or access to basic goods. International humanitarian law (IHL) sets out clear obligations for states to anticipate these foreseeable humanitarian needs and to ensure that impartial relief can reach affected communities swiftly and safely. Yet from customs hurdles to restrictive regulatory frameworks, many of the barriers to life-saving assistance are rooted not in conflict itself, but in peacetime choices. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Ellen Policinski examines how states can proactively shape legal, administrative, and logistical systems that enable, rather than obstruct, humanitarian relief in moments of crisis. She underscores that meeting IHL obligations requires advance preparation – from easing import restrictions to ensuring postal and customs exemptions – so that when conflict erupts, assistance can move without avoidable delay.

As artificial intelligence (AI) begins to shape decisions about who is detained in armed conflict and how detention facilities are managed, questions once reserved for science fiction are now urgent matters of law and ethics. The drive to harness data and optimize efficiency risks displacing human judgment from one of the most sensitive areas of warfare: deprivation of liberty. In doing so, AI could strip detainees of what remains of their humanity, reducing them to data points and undermining the core humanitarian guarantees that the Geneva Conventions were designed to protect. In this post, Terry Hackett, ICRC's Head of the Persons Deprived of Liberty Unit, and Alexis Comninos, ICRC's Thematic Legal Adviser, explore how the use of AI in detention operations intersects with international humanitarian law (IHL), and why humane treatment must remain a human-centered endeavor. Drawing on the ICRC's recent recommendations to the UN Secretary-General, they argue that while IHL does not oppose innovation, it sets the moral and legal boundaries that ensure technological progress does not come at the cost of human dignity.

When wars end, peace rarely begins overnight. It's built, slowly and painstakingly, through acts that restore a sense of humanity where it was once suspended. Among these, how a society treats people it detains may seem peripheral, yet it can determine whether trust survives long enough for peace to take root. Humane detention, often overshadowed by more visible aspects of conflict recovery, is in fact one of the earliest and most concrete tests of readiness for peace. Each act of respect for law and dignity – registering a detainee, allowing a family visit, providing medical care, or releasing a prisoner when the reason for detention has ceased – helps reduce the harm that fuels revenge and instead preserves the fragile threads of trust that can bind divided societies. In this post, Terry Hackett, ICRC's Head of the Persons Deprived of Liberty Unit, and Audrey Purcell-O'Dwyer, ICRC's Legal Adviser with the Global Initiative on IHL, show how compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) in detention – while not a direct path to peace – can serve as a legal and moral bridge towards it, one rooted in dignity, accountability, and the quiet rebuilding of trust. By limiting suffering and safeguarding dignity, it helps prevent conflicts from eroding the institutions and confidence that societies need to recover.

In line with its mandate, the ICRC engages with all parties to an armed conflict, including non-state armed groups. The ICRC has a long history of confidential humanitarian engagement with armed groups to alleviate and prevent the suffering of persons living in areas controlled by these groups. However, this engagement has become increasingly complex. Accordingly, the ICRC undertakes an annual internal exercise to evaluate the status of its relationships with armed groups and to identify developments to strengthen its future engagement worldwide. In this post, ICRC Adviser Matthew Bamber-Zryd discusses key findings from the 2025 exercise. The ICRC estimates that 204 million people live in areas controlled or contested by armed groups. In 2025, there were more than 380 armed groups of humanitarian concern. A key development in 2025 is the ICRC's deepened engagement with non-state armed groups that are parties to armed conflict and bound by international humanitarian law (IHL), achieving significantly higher contact rates with these groups than with other armed actors. Yet engagement remains constrained by three major obstacles: deteriorating security conditions, operational constraints including limited resources and competing priorities, and state-imposed barriers, notably counter-terrorism legislation.

The impact of armed conflict on mental health is increasingly evident. According to data from the World Health Organization, one in five people who have experienced armed conflict in the last ten years suffers from some form of mental health condition. With an estimated two billion people living in places affected by war, the scale of the problem is staggering. Yet, despite its magnitude, the legal protection of mental health during hostilities remains largely overlooked by both academics and practitioners. In this post, part of the Emerging Voices series, Giulia Bosi, Postdoctoral Researcher in International Law at Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna in Pisa, Italy, examines whether and how international humanitarian law (IHL) seeks to safeguard mental health. Her analysis shows that the drafters of IHL treaties were, at least to some extent, aware of the importance of mental health, that several IHL norms aim to protect it, and that the growing recognition of mental health as an integral part of health is shaping contemporary interpretations of IHL.

Episode #409: His military experience enabled a rapport with Myanmar's armed actors, says Rory McCann, who recently served almost two years as the country Weapons Contamination Specialist for the ICRC. A challenge at the beginning of the job was to build trust with different conflict parties, in part to convince them that the ICRC was teaching weapons safety regarding landmines and other explosive ordnance, not weapons handling. As a 25-year veteran of the Irish Army, McCann was deployed in Chad, Syria and Uganda, with his training in the ordnance corps preparing him for humanitarian mine action. His ICRC role included interaction with the Myanmar Armed Forces and other armed groups. “When you're talking about humanitarian mine action, it has to be much more systematic and you're looking at the international mine action standards,” McCann says. International standards, which are not adhered to in Myanmar, set guidelines across “five pillars": clearance, risk education, victim assistance, stockpile destruction, and advocacy. McCann says his role was educating armed actors about obligations to protect civilians and landmine use under customary IHL. Myanmar is not a signatory to the CCW or the Mine Ban Treaty. Conflict actors are still legally bound by customary IHL that prohibits indiscriminate use of landmines. “Landmine fields are designed to be an obstacle … What we were seeing in Myanmar … they're simply being used in a sporadic and maybe punitive manner.” Known as “nuisance mining,” this fails to meet military objectives and poses indiscriminate threat to civilians. At present, only risk education, victim assistance, and advocacy are underway. Since 2015, the ICRC and MRCS have conducted over 1,800 sessions reaching 69,000 people in 2024. More than 4,800 people with disabilities were supported through physical rehabilitation services. National ownership is an ICRC goal, though McCann admits conflict makes realization unlikely, focusing instead on risk mitigation and advocacy.

S5E9 Retail's Best Kept Secret: Discover How RetailROI Transforms Children's FuturesIn this special replay episode of The Retail Razor Show, we shine a spotlight on the incredible work of the Retail Orphan Initiative (RetailROI)—a nonprofit transforming lives of orphans and foster children through the power of the retail industry. With a fresh introduction for 2025, hosts Ricardo Belmar and Casey Golden revisit a heartfelt conversation with Greg Buzek, President of RetailROI, Vicki Cantrell, board member and retail legend, and Jeff Roster, former Gartner & IHL analyst and top retail expert, as they share the origin story, mission, and global impact of this powerful retail charity.Learn how RetailROI's Super Saturday event at NRF has become the most meaningful gathering of the year, where retailers, tech vendors, and solution providers come together to help fund clean water, education, and life skills training for thousands of children worldwide. Hear inspiring stories of transformation, including previous keynote speaker Darryl McDaniels of Run DMC, and discover how just showing up at Super Saturday can help change lives.Whether you're a retailer planning for NRF, a technology supplier and potential sponsor, or simply passionate about retail's role in social responsibility, this episode will move you to action. Join us in celebrating RetailROI's rich history and accomplishments and learn how you too can become a RetailROI Champion.

Across contemporary armed conflicts, the presence of civilian groups who take up arms to defend their communities raises enduring and complex legal challenges. At what point do these groups become parties to an armed conflict or otherwise bound by IHL? Do civilians who participate in hostilities lose protection against attack, and if so, for how long? Who bears responsibility for ensuring that they, and other civilians drawn into conflict, respect IHL? In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Jelena Nikolic, Tilman Rodenhäuser and Thomas de Saint Maurice examine these questions in the context of non-international armed conflicts, seeking to help in the analysis of determining whether and at what point groups of civilians become parties to armed conflicts, what their legal obligations are, and who is responsible for their conduct.

This 100th Humanitarian AI Today episode focuses on blind spots in AI safety and aligning AI with International Humanitarian Law. Guest host, Andre Heller, Director of Signpost at the International Rescue Committee (IRC), speaks with Sergio Coronado, Chief Information Officer with NATO's Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), about important research that he is heading at the Luxembourg Tech School studying “blind spots” in AI safety at the intersection of artificial intelligence and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Dr. Coronado speaks in detail about his team's groundbreaking research, which tested leading AI models against codified rules of humanitarian law. The conversation delves into the chilling discovery that while models refuse obviously harmful requests about 90% of the time, they can still for example be prompted to generate malicious code for targeting civilian infrastructure like hospitals, contrary to IHL. This dialogue moves beyond identifying the problem to explore tangible solutions, highlighting how simple interventions can dramatically improve AI's adherence to legal principles. It serves as a powerful call to action for the humanitarian and technology communities to bridge this dangerous gap and champion the development of AI that is not just powerful, but principled and fundamentally law-adherent. Interview Notes: https://medium.com/humanitarian-ai-today/sergio-coronado-on-blind-spots-in-ai-safety-and-international-humanitarian-law-40b64590a119

The waters stretching from the Eastern Indian Ocean through Southeast and East Asia to the Western Pacific sustain global trade, host abundant marine resources vital to the livelihoods of many, and power regional economies. They are central to the national security of many states and are also home to major powers, vast archipelagic states, and many smaller states, including small island nations. These waters are also marked by overlapping maritime claims, strategic maritime chokepoints, and a growing military presence, including states from outside the region. Tensions rise when maritime incidents occur and there is an ever-present risk of miscalculations spiraling into broader confrontations. While armed conflict is not inevitable, if it were to occur it would likely unfold with considerable intensity, scale and tempo, with far-reaching and severe humanitarian consequences. Preparing for such a scenario requires not only preventing escalation but also ensuring that humanitarian impacts are mitigated and that impartial humanitarian action can take place, even in complex maritime environments where neutral states would also be called upon to shoulder important responsibilities. In this post, part of the “Complying with IHL in large-scale conflict” series, ICRC Legal Advisers Ansha Krishnan and Eve Massingham explore some of the humanitarian challenges posed by potential large-scale conflict in the Asia-Pacific region. The maritime nature of the region, together with its vast geographical scope and the present geo-political realities means aspects of conflict preparedness bear specific consideration because of the practical measures required to comply with IHL obligations and prepare for likely humanitarian consequences.

The episode opens with Bhatt framing the global stakes: from drones on the battlefield to AI-powered early warning systems, militaries worldwide are racing to integrate AI, often citing strategic necessity in volatile security environments. Mohan underscores that AI in conflict cannot be characterized in a single way, applications range from decision-support systems and logistics to disinformation campaigns and border security.The conversation explores two categories of AI-related risks:Inherent risks: design flaws, bias in datasets, adversarial attacks, and human–machine trust calibration.Applied risks: escalation through miscalculation, misuse in targeting, and AI's role as a force multiplier for nuclear and cyber threats.On governance, Mohan explains the fragmentation of current disarmament processes, where AI intersects with multiple regimes, nuclear, cyber, conventional arms, yet lacks a unified framework. She highlights ongoing debates at the UN's Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on LAWS, where consensus has been stalled over definitions, human-machine interaction, and whether regulation should be voluntary or treaty-based.International humanitarian law (IHL) remains central, with discussions focusing on how principles like distinction, proportionality, and precaution can apply to autonomous systems. Mohan also emphasizes a “life-cycle approach” to weapon assessment, extending legal and ethical oversight from design to deployment and decommissioning.A significant portion of the conversation turns to gender and bias, an area Mohan has advanced through her research at UNIDIR. She draws attention to how gendered and racial biases encoded in AI systems can manifest in conflict, stressing the importance of diversifying participation in both technology design and disarmament diplomacy.Looking forward, Mohan cites UN Secretary-General António Guterres's call for a legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons by 2026. She argues that progress will depend on multi-stakeholder engagement, national strategies on AI, and confidence-building measures between states. The episode closes with a reflection on the future of warfare as inseparable from governance innovation—shifting from arms reduction to resilience, capacity-building, and responsible innovation.Episode ContributorsShimona Mohan is an associate researcher on Gender & Disarmament and Security & Technology at UNIDIR in Geneva, Switzerland. She was named among Women in AI Ethics' “100 Brilliant Women in AI Ethics for 2024.” Her areas of focus include the multifarious intersections of security, emerging technologies (in particular AI and cybersecurity), gender, and disarmament. Charukeshi Bhatt is a research analyst at Carnegie India, where her work focuses on the intersection of emerging technologies and international security. Her current research explores how advancements in technologies such as AI are shaping global disarmament frameworks and security norms.ReadingsGender and Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, UNIDIR Factsheet Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of AI and Autonomy, US Department of StateAI in the Military Domain: A Briefing Note for States by Giacomo Persi Paoli and Yasmin AfinaUnderstanding the Global Debate on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: An Indian Perspective by Charukeshi Bhatt and Tejas Bharadwaj Every two weeks, Interpreting India brings you diverse voices from India and around the world to explore the critical questions shaping the nation's future. We delve into how technology, the economy, and foreign policy intertwine to influence India's relationship with the global stage.As a Carnegie India production, hosted by Carnegie scholars, Interpreting India, a Carnegie India production, provides insightful perspectives and cutting-edge by tackling the defining questions that chart India's course through the next decade.Stay tuned for thought-provoking discussions, expert insights, and a deeper understanding of India's place in the world.Don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review to join the conversation and be part of Interpreting India's journey.

As many states, especially those with large and resourceful militaries, are exploring the potential of using artificial intelligence (AI) in targeting decisions, there is an urgent need to understand the risks associated with these systems, one being the risks of bias. However, while concerns about bias are often mentioned in the military AI policy debate, how it manifests as harm and what can be done to address it is rarely discussed in depth. This represents a critical gap in efforts to ensure the lawful use of military AI. To help bridge this gap, Laura Bruun and Marta Bo from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) unpack the humanitarian and legal implications of bias in military AI. They show how bias in military AI is likely to manifest in more complex and subtle ways than portrayed in policy debates, and if unaddressed, it may affect compliance with IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, and, especially, precautions in attack.

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are no longer speculative technologies of future warfare – they are being field-tested by countries such as the United States and China. As BCI technologies transition from the laboratory to the battlefield, they bring both significant risks and potential advantages for future warfare. In this post, Dr. Anna M. Gielas, an affiliated researcher with the Centre for Global Knowledge Studies at the University of Cambridge, explores how BCI may challenge international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law, requiring closer scrutiny and deeper debate on the development of national and international BCI regulations.

Fabrizio Carboni, head of the ICRC delegation to the US and Canada, speaks to his vast experience in the wars of the past two decades, including the profound impact of 9/11 (2001) in integrating humanitarian action into battlefield strategies—including the targeting of humanitarian operations. Today, almost 25 years later, we are witnessing unrestrained violence, limitless war, and flagrant disregard for International Humanitarian Law. The emotional, psychological dimensions are poorly understood. Political leadership is essential whenever soldiers are asked to respect IHL. The most dangerous moment is when states argue that they are fighting a "survival war" that they believe is exceptional. Does the Trump administration honor IHL or seek a "realist" American First alternative? It is too early to reach a conclusion: "There is no rupture." It is also too early to know how deep cuts in US foreign assistance will impact ICRC and the broader global response to humanitarian crises. ICRC does remain a "soft target," increasingly exposed. It is striking how a single actor—the United States—can be so "steep" in changing its course. It shifts the ground towards deeper burden-sharing and inspires a debate on what the new architecture will be, with far less money. ICRC has just recently repatriated the remains of 6,000 persons killed in the Russian war against Ukraine. In Gaza there is no way for ICRC to avoid getting hit from all directions. 2,200 Gazans were recently shot or hit with shrapnel while approaching the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation food distributions. "Those numbers are unacceptable." 

“Without information and telecommunication, people don't know where to go for safety,” the ICRC reported from an ongoing armed conflict. Another humanitarian worker recalled that when connectivity is down and “a bombing happens, especially in the night, you cannot reach ambulances”. The importance of connectivity for people affected by armed conflict is further exemplified when displaced people ask humanitarian organizations for Wi-Fi or a ‘hot spot', as connectivity provides the most direct contact to their loved ones. Yet, disruptions of connectivity are frequent in today's armed conflict, at times part of incidental damage caused by hostilities, at other times presented as a measure necessary to impact an enemy's operations. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Tilman Rodenhäuser discusses some of the limits that international humanitarian law (IHL) imposes on connectivity disruptions in armed conflict. The notion ‘connectivity disruptions' is used to describe operations by belligerents that make digital connectivity or tele-communications unavailable or otherwise disrupted, temporarily or in the longer term.

In contemporary humanitarian crises, handling the dead presents significant practical and ethical challenges. With a significant number of armed conflicts occurring in Muslim contexts, understanding how Islamic law mandates dignified treatment of the deceased is essential to ensure that forensic interventions align with cultural and legal norms. In this post, Dr Ahmed Al Dawoody, ICRC Legal Adviser for Islamic Law, examines how Islamic legal traditions address matters such as collective burial, rapid interment, exhumation, autopsy, burial at sea, and gender sensitive handling of remains. He argues that these rules both reinforce and complement international humanitarian law (IHL), offering forensic practitioners culturally grounded pathways to uphold the dignity of the dead while navigating operational realities in Muslim majority settings.

This episode is released to mark the International Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy for Peace 2025. We invited Marie Hürlimann, Co-Director, and Raphaëlle Leung, Head of Communications of Foraus, a Swiss participatory think tank for young thinkers who want to shape tomorrow's foreign policy, to talk about the latest Foraus publication that they co-edited with Maximillian Rau: GenSouth - New voices from the Global South for the multilateral system of the future. GenSouth is a programme designed to bring together academics and think tank researchers from the Global South, aged between 25 and 35, to engage in discussions about the multilateralism of the future and to develop actionable, ambitious recommendations. Marie and Raphaëlle talk with Francesco Pisano, Director of the UN Library & Archives in Geneva, about the GenSouth project. They reveal to us four visions of possible futures of multilateralism elaborated in the report. GenSouth sees a world built on collective responsibility where the international community does not stand by in the violation of IHL; a reimagined South-South cooperation prioritising resilience, sustainability, and sovereignty; a transformation of the global financial architecture to empower vulnerable communities' access to climate finance; and Security Council reform for the inclusion of global south and the future of peace. With thanks to the authors: Subia Ahmad, Maria Dominika Mediana Rossa Budhisatrio, Marième Cissé, Marília Closs, Paula Lottenberg, Muhammad Nidhal, Luanda Mpungose, Kwaji Ble Ngida, Olumide Onitekun, Luis Gabriel Herrera Perez, Beatriz Pfeifer, Pratyush Sharma, Parousia Tlhompho Shikwambane, Malena Viú. Read about GenSouth and access the report: https://foraus.ch/en/projects/gensouth-programme-2024/ Resources: Ask a Librarian! Where to listen to this episode  Apple podcasts:  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-next-page/id1469021154 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/10fp8ROoVdve0el88KyFLy YouTube: https://youtu.be/7lh81yuAPxQ Content    Guests: Marie Hürlimann and Raphaëlle Leung, Foraus Host: Francesco Pisano, Director, UN Library & Archives Geneva Recorded and produced at the United Nations Library & Archives Geneva 

For centuries, magic and warfare have been deeply intertwined, shaping military strategy, morale, and even battlefield outcomes. From Mesopotamian divination and Greek war omens to medieval sacred warfare and modern occult operations, supernatural beliefs have influenced how wars are fought and won. In this episode, we explore the forgotten history of magical warfare, revealing how esoteric traditions have been used to protect warriors, disrupt enemies, and even alter the course of history.Did John Dee's Enochian magic help defeat the Spanish Armada? Were Nazi leaders using occult knowledge for strategic advantage? And did British Wiccans perform a ritual to psychically deter Hitler from invading Britain? We examine historical records, esoteric practices, and modern interpretations of war magic, shedding light on one of history's most mysterious intersections of the mystical and the military.

In episode #286, we're joined by John Weisbrod, former NHL executive, scout and NBA GM. Yes, you read that correctly.  After a playing career that saw Weisbrod win a National Championship at Harvard and attend the San Jose Sharks first training camp, he pivoted to a career in team building at just 25 years-ols. After getting his start in Albany of the AHL, he would travel to Orlando where his time with the  IHL's Solar Bears resulted in him being named the GM of the Magic for one season. Following that, he would return to hockey, spending time as a scout and Assistant GM with the Calgary Flames and Vancouver Canucks. You're going to want to hear Weisbrod's story. He might just be the most interesting man in hockey.  Listen as he shares the story behind running an NBA franchise, key lessons while working under Lou Lamoriello and why hockey sense runs throughout the Hughes family.

The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), also known as international humanitarian law (IHL), is a set of rules that govern warfare and aim to minimize harm to civilians and non-combatants. Alexandra Meise joins podcast editor Ron Granieri to examine the development of LOAC, which stems from treaties like the Geneva Conventions, domestic laws of individual states, and the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court. Their conversation delves into war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. Alexandra emphasizes the importance of LOAC in providing a framework for accountability in the chaos of war, even if enforcement can be challenging. She stresses that despite its limitations, LOAC serves as a reminder that even in conflict, there must be rules to protect human life and dignity.

Todays Topics Join me along with my guest Jukka as well discuss Rempe analytics in hockey IHL 70s crazy Len Ircandia along with many other topics Welcome to the 4th Line Voice #EnforcerBasedPodcasting presented by The Hockey Podcast Network Join Darren, a lifelong hockey fan who dives deep into the often misunderstood role of the hockey enforcer. Guests include fellow fight fans and former players who share their unique stories and perspective on the highs and lows of playing and performing the tough-guy role. Episode 428 Sponsored by https://gametime.co/ Find Your Next Great Experience   CALL TO ACTION: Download the DraftKings Pick Six app NOW and use code THPN. That's code THPN for new customers to play $5, get $50 in Pick 6 credits. Happy holidays from DraftKings Pick Six. The crown is yours. Gambling Problem? Call one eight hundred gambler. Help is available for problem gambling. Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven, or visit c c p g dot org in Connecticut. Must be eighteen plus, age and eligibility restrictions vary by jurisdiction. Pick6 not available everywhere, including New York and Ontario. Void where prohibited. One per new customer. Bonus awarded as non-withdrawable Pick Six Credits that expire in thirty days. Limited time offer. See terms at pick six dot draftkings dot com slash promos.

At their core, the laws of war seek to preserve humanity in the most difficult conditions. As Dr. Cordula Droege, the chief legal officer and head of the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (or ICRC) recently wrote for Just Security, “Understood in simplest terms, the law of armed conflict acknowledges that both sides will inevitably kill, injure, detain, and destroy, but it prohibits them from dehumanizing their adversary.” She notes that “Altogether, IHL contains hundreds of rules that protect life, health, and human dignity. It is modest and imperfect – it seeks only to guarantee a modicum of humanity in situations where our humanity has already been largely compromised.” But across the world – from Gaza to Myanmar to Ukraine to Sudan – IHL is facing a moment of profound strain. Civilians are targeted. Cities are leveled. And, as Droege writes, “All too often today, the protective purpose of IHL is set aside and the rules are literally turned on their head: instead of being interpreted to protect civilians, the absence of clear violations are invoked to justify a level of death, injury and destruction that is precisely what IHL intended to avoid.” Are the laws of war inadequate? Why are some States choosing not to comply? What exactly is the problem with IHL? Dr. Droege join the show to discuss her article, “War and What We Make of the Law” with Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman, and Just Security Legal Editor and Podcast Host and Executive Producer, Paras Shah. Show Notes:  Cordula Droege (@CDroegeICRC) Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Cordula's Just Security article “War and What We Make of the Law”Mary Wareham's Just Security article “Lithuania Leaving Cluster Munition Ban Undermines Agreement, Threatens Crucial Norms” Just Security's International Humanitarian Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

What started 11 years ago in an apartment was two guys with two microphones wondering what to talk about. Now, 11 years, hundreds of episodes, dozens of guests, and an unending number of laughs later.. we end with two guys with microphones. Before we get into the good-byes, let me just say that the week to week Somethingcast is ending, but the website and all of the episodes will remain here for a long time to come and there is every chance that you may see the occasional post or update from the podcast feed. Between Livestream for the Cure, Christmas Parties, or just because Rob and I are really horrible at putting stuff down, this is goodbye, but we will definitely stop back in from time to time to see if we remember how to do it. That said, let’s get to the farewells. First, we thank Big Matt for letting us take our bow without him. The last few months he has been an amazing cohost and added a new spin on the fact that the two of us know each other so well. Thank you for that, and we look forward to working with you on whatever comes next. From Hatton: Geez, writing this was harder than recording that episode. Whether you have been a fan or friend of mine from the Rabble days or the IHL days or just because we met somewhere out on an adventure.. I want to thank you for your love and support and for just being a part of my journey and letting me be a part of yours. You know as well as I do that this isn’t the last time I’ll try and entertain you, but that doesn’t mean that ending this chapter of over a decade doesn’t sting. Anyway, so long and thanks for all the fish.   From PCR: Not sure what to say here that I haven’t brought up in one way or another in the last few episodes, except to say that this has been an amazing journey and I wouldn’t change any of it for the world.  The places we’ve gone and people we’ve met thanks to this silly little show.. well.. none of it would have been possible without it.  To anyone we’ve met, interviewed, hooked us up, and/or listened…  my sincerest thanks.  As James said, this won’t be the last time I, he, or we try to entertain you.  To quote Winnie the Pooh “How lucky I am that have something that makes saying goodbye so hard”. So, one last time… Okay here we go! Full Episode

IHL expert Janina Dill discusses the myths and confusion around the rules of war.

From September 12, 2015: On this week's Lawfare Podcast, Benjamin Wittes sits down with Professor Gabriella Blum, professor at Harvard Law School, and Dustin Lewis, a senior researcher at Harvard Law Schools' Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, to discuss their new report written with Naz Modirzadeh entitled Medical Care in Armed Conflict: IHL and State Responses to Terrorism. The conversation takes a look at whether we should consider medical care a form of illegitimate support to terrorists. Their argument? We shouldn't, because IHL lays down extensive protections for medical care, and those protections in many instances should also constrain domestic material support cases. Yet the authors make clear that in their view, there's also more to be done, as there are gaps and weaknesses in the protections afforded by IHL itself.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is provoking heated debates about which side is in the right. Each accuses the other of things like war crimes. Oftentimes, they're expressing a political or moral judgment—but the fact is, these are also legal terms.So for this discussion, we're going to step back from the debates and try to take a dispassionate look at the law that applies here—international humanitarian law, or IHL.To do that, Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Gabor Rona, who previously served as the legal adviser for the International Committee for the Red Cross. They talked about what IHL has to say about the most heated debates of this conflict, including the high number of civilian casualties in Gaza and Hamas's use of human shields. They talked about the gaps in the law. And they talked about whether the law even matters here. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.