Podcasts about ihl

Large-scale detention operations in international armed conflicts (IACs) pose significant humanitarian, legal, and operational challenges. International humanitarian law (IHL) provides detailed rules governing the treatment and protection of persons deprived of liberty, whether they are prisoners of war, other persons interned for security reasons, or other protected persons. These obligations, enshrined primarily in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, require not only compliance once the armed conflict begins, but advance planning during peacetime. Without the appropriate institutions, infrastructures, and trained personnel in place beforehand, states risk falling short of their legal obligations when hostilities erupt, to the detriment of detainees' rights and dignity. In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Sylvain Vité and Isabelle Gallino explore what it takes to comply with IHL in large-scale detention operations during IACs, focusing on the preparatory measures that states must undertake long before the first capture. Building on the previous post in this series, they highlight the critical need to establish functioning legal and administrative mechanisms, ensure the availability of adequate facilities and resources, and embed IHL training across relevant personnel.

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 

Landmines, a persistent threat in post-conflict zones, pose severe risks to both human lives and the environment. These explosive devices, often buried underground, remain dormant for years, contaminating soil and water and causing long-term ecological damage. While robust legal frameworks governing landmines exist under international humanitarian law (IHL), landmine instruments have only recently begun to incorporate more explicit environmental protections. In this post, and as part of the Emerging Voices series, Goran Sandić, Researcher at the University of Belgrade and Coordinator of the Belgrade International Law Circle, argues that the “polluter pays” principle – originally formulated in international environmental law – can serve as an interpretive lens to reinforce the responsibility of states and other actors for environmental harm arising from landmine use. By weaving this principle into existing processes, we can more effectively address the ongoing costs of landmine remediation and underscore the responsibility of parties that violate fundamental obligations under IHL. This approach aims to support environmental justice while enhancing the legal framework for armed conflicts, which could influence post-conflict recovery efforts and mine action globally.

As public opinion is critical in shaping decision-making during armed conflict, engaging with and informing youth and the broader public about international humanitarian law (IHL) is essential for ensuring compliance with the law and promoting accountability. IHL education – both formal and non-formal – is key to this endeavor. Engagement across all generations and audiences – both military and civilian – is important to ensure a broad and enduring understanding of the goals of IHL and ultimately contribute to prevent and reduce suffering in armed conflict through an informed and motivated public. With over 42% of the global population under the age of 25, young people are especially critical to these efforts. In this post, Etienne Kuster, Catherine Gribbin, Jonathan Somer, Thomas Harper and Charlotte Tocchio share insights from IHL educators and IHL experts around the world on how IHL education needs further investment in order to build a universal culture of compliance.

As states increasingly focus on strengthening their defense capabilities, discussions on military preparedness are gaining prominence, particularly in relation to large-scale conflicts. Such conflicts, involving major powers, advanced weaponry, and extensive resources, would unfold with considerable intensity, scale, and tempo. The humanitarian consequences would be far-reaching and severe, potentially causing mass casualties, mass displacement, and the disruption of essential services. The Geneva Conventions, adopted in the aftermath of two world wars, were designed precisely to help mitigate the suffering in armed conflict. Yet ratification alone is not enough: for these rules to be upheld in practice, extensive legal and operational preparations must begin in times of peace. This introductory post sets the stage for a new series examining the steps needed to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) in large-scale conflicts. Isabelle Gallino, ICRC Prevention Adviser, and Sylvain Vité, ICRC Senior Legal Adviser, argue that states must do more than recognize their legal obligations. Applicable rules must be understood, internalized, and backed by legal and practical measures today if they are to be effective once an armed conflict erupts. Ultimately, failure to prepare can undermine even the best-intentioned efforts to comply with IHL.

References to Islamic law made by the delegations of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria during the 1974–1977 Diplomatic Conference – which led to the adoption of the two Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions – offer a partial glimpse into the contributions of Islamic law to the development of some modern international humanitarian law (IHL) principles. In this post, ICRC's legal adviser for Islamic law and jurisprudence, Ahmed Al-Dawoody and ICRC Associate Medha Damojipurapu examine some of the contributions of Islamic law to the development of the Additional Protocols, as well as the motivations for ratification by Muslim-majority states. They maintain that studying these perspectives can support humanitarian organizations to effectively communicate and anchor the protection owed to people affected by armed conflict during their dialogue in relevant contexts.

Earlier this month, Lithuania's unprecedented withdrawal from the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) took effect. Meanwhile, several states are openly questioning their continued adherence to other humanitarian treaties, including the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC). These developments take place amid heightened international tensions and mounting security concerns, both in Europe and globally. They come at a time when respect for fundamental humanitarian norms is shockingly insufficient, as the immense devastation in ongoing conflicts demonstrates. In this post, ICRC Chief Legal Officer Cordula Droege and ICRC Legal Adviser Maya Brehm caution that recent challenges to the APMBC mirror broader threats to the life-saving protections of international humanitarian law (IHL). They argue that justifications for using anti-personnel mines (APM) tend to be divorced from battlefield realities and overlook the appalling impacts of these treacherous weapons. The authors also show how efforts to circumvent or abandon the APMBC challenge fundamental precepts of IHL and undermine the international rule of law. The post concludes with a call to reinforce humanitarian norms as essential safeguards for upholding humanity in war.

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 today's multilateral disarmament, peace and security, and humanitarian fora, a key responsibility of states – and a challenge for their lawyers and policy makers – is to find common understandings on the international legal limits on information and communication technology (ICT) activities during armed conflicts. Following over two decades of discussions – and gradual progress – in UN General Assembly mandated groups of governmental experts and open-ended working groups on the use of ICTs, multilateral efforts to agree to such limits have reached an important juncture. In this post, the ICRC's Laurent Gisel and Tilman Rodenhäuser highlight the significant progress achieved on the protection of civilian populations against ICT activities through the adoption of ‘the first humanitarian ICT resolution' at the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in October 2024. The authors discuss the trajectory that this resolution sets for multilateral work in the UN Open-Ended Working Group that concludes this year, for the ICTs workstream of the Global Initiative on IHL, and the ICRC's project on a digital emblem.

Episode 74: Ian Herbers. University of Alberta Head Coach Ian Herbers found some time in his busy schedule to jump on the prohockeypod. Ian grew up playing hockey in Alberta before embarking on a 4 year WHL journey. He was drafted by the Edmonton Oilers but due to an injury, decided to go the USports route. During his years as a player at U of Alberta, Ian was fortunate to win a championship. He talked about that season and the group of guys, as well as mentioning they just had their 25 anniversary a couple years ago. Ian constantly brought up that he didn't think too much about how is career was going or going up levels. He simply just showed up everyday, put in his work and enjoyed being in the locker room with his teammates. After university, Ian started his pro journey through the AHL and IHL, while playing NHL games with Edmonton, Tampa Bay and New York. Throughout his playing career, he was able to win a USports championship, a Turner Cup in the IHL and a Calder Cup in the AHL. Ian had a couple years as a Player Coach so it was no surprise that when he retired, he would transition to behind the bench. He has coached in many leagues (AHL, OHL, ECHL, NHL and CIS/USports). As mentioned, Ian was able to make it to the NHL as an Assistant Coach with the Edmonton Oilers for a few seasons. I asked him how he handled/coached star players in Edmonton like Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. He brought up how easy it was to work with them, their incredible work ethic and always trying to improve. Ian is now back at UofA as the Head Coach and has added some more titles to his coaching resume. Great talking to Ian and I was very happy I got the chance to pick his brain. Hope you enjoy!

As the devastating impacts of armed conflicts continue to mount, civilians are enduring unimaginable suffering. Violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) are compounding these crises, while emerging threats such as autonomous weapons and cyber warfare add new dimensions to the challenges facing humanity. Despite the universal ratification of the Geneva Conventions, the erosion of respect for these fundamental rules of war endangers lives, infrastructure, and the fragile prospects for peace. In this post, ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric outlines the pressing need for states to join the Global Initiative on international humanitarian law. By reaffirming their commitment to this much-needed body of law, states can ensure the protection of civilians, restore dignity to those affected by conflict, and build a pathway toward sustainable peace. The time to act is now, and the Global Initiative offers a platform for collective action to uphold the rules that safeguard humanity.

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.

Canada recently published its first voluntary report on the implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL), highlighting its efforts to comply with IHL rules. However, the report overlooks key challenges and critical issues, leaving gaps that future reports should address. In this post, Professor Tiwa Fomekong examines the achievements described in Canada's report alongside its omissions, arguing that for such reports to reach their full potential as tools for enhancing respect for IHL and accountability, future efforts must be more comprehensive and transparent in addressing shortcomings, detailing corrective actions, and tackling emerging issues.

In an era of rising geopolitical tensions, terms like ‘hybrid threats,' ‘grey zones,' and ‘proxy warfare' are frequently used to describe covert and ambiguous operations, suggesting they blur the lines between peace and armed conflict. From cyberattacks on civilian infrastructure to the damaging of undersea cables, these acts are often labeled as ‘hybrid warfare,' raising questions about their legal and political implications. In this post, and drawing from the ICRC's 2024 report on contemporary challenges to international humanitarian law (IHL), ICRC Legal Advisers Samit D'Cunha, Tristan Ferraro, and Tilman Rodenhäuser clarify how legal criteria – not political narratives – determine whether a situation constitutes an armed conflict, highlighting the importance of accurate classification to uphold the protections afforded by IHL.

Send us a textIn this episode, Simon speaks with Dr Katharine Fortin about non-international armed conflicts, focussing on the intersections between IHL, international human rights law and armed non-State actors. Dr Katharine Fortin is a senior lecturer of public international law and human rights at Utrecht University's Netherlands Institute of Human Rights. She is the Editor in Chief of the Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights and founder of the Armed Groups and International Law blog. Her book The Accountability of Armed Groups under Human Rights Law (OUP, 2017) won the Lieber Prize in 2018. She is Co-Investigator on the Beyond Compliance Consortium: Building Evidence on Promoting Restraint by Armed Actors. Katharine has a LLM and PhD from the Utrecht University. She is a qualified solicitor in the UK and previously worked at Norton Rose Fulbright, the Council of Churches of Sierra Leone, the ICC and the ICTY.Additional resources:Fortin, Katharine ‘Mapping Calamities: Capturing the Competing Legalities of Spaces under the Control of armed non State Actors without erasing everyday civilian life' (2023) 8(1) Social Science and Humanities OpenMatthew Bamber-Zryd, 'ICRC engagement with armed groups in 2024' Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog (31 October 2024)Katharine Fortin and Ezequiel Heffes (eds), Armed Groups and International Law: In the Shadowland of Legality and Illegality (Edward Elgar, 2023)Naz Modirzadeh, 'Cut These Words: Passion and International Law of War Scholarship' (2020) 61(1) Harvard International Law Journal 1.Zoe Pearson, 'Spaces of International Law' (2008) 17 Griffith Law Review 489.Helen Kinsella, The Image Before the Weapon: A Critical History of the Distinction between Combatant and Civilian (Cornell University Press, 2015)Kieran McIvoy, 'Beyond Legalism: Towards a Thicker Understanding of Transitional Justice' (2007) 34(4) Journal of Law and Society 411.Sally Engle Merry, The Seductions of Quantification: Measuring Human Rights, Gender Violence and Sex Trafficking (University of Chicago Press, 2016)Ana Arjona, Rebelocracy: Social Order in the Colombian Civil War (CUP, 2016)Zachariah Cherian Mampilly, Rebel Rulers: Insurgent

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.

Around the world, civilians in cities at war face immense risks. Urban warfare devastates lives and livelihoods, as people are killed and injured, critical infrastructure such as hospitals and water systems are damaged or destroyed, and entire communities are forced to flee. Disruptions to essential services amplifies the suffering of civilians and poses significant humanitarian challenges. As urbanization grows, the impact of conflicts in cities demands urgent and coordinated action to reduce harm and uphold the protections afforded under international humanitarian law (IHL). At the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in October 2024, this pressing issue was raised through the adoption of a Solemn Appeal on War in Cities. The resolution, adopted by consensus, reflects a shared recognition of the human cost of urban warfare and a commitment to improving the protection of civilians. To mark this moment, the resolution was read aloud during the conference, underscoring its importance and the collective responsibility it calls for. Today, we share both the transcript and video of the reading as a reminder of the need for action to safeguard human lives and preserve dignity in urban conflict settings.

Send us a textIn this episode, Simon speaks to Professor Helen Kinsella and Associate Professor Giovanni Mantilla, two leading experts on the history and formation of the Geneva Conventions and IHL more generally. They discuss the negotiations leading up the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol, exploring some of the political tensions that sits behind the provisions of these key legal texts. This includes how the law treats non-state actors and non-international armed conflict, as well who gets the right to wage war. Helen Kinsella is a Professor of Political Science and Law at the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on the theorization of gender and armed conflict and she is currently working on a book on sleep in war and another on the histories of the laws of war through the United States' wars against Native peoples.  She is the author of The Image before the Weapon (Cornell University Press, 2011), which won the 2012 Sussex International Theory Prize. Helen has a PhD in Political Science and an MA in Public Policy from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, and a BA in Political Science and Gender Studies from Bryn Mawr College.Giovanni Mantilla is an Associate Professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies at Cambridge University, Fellow of Christ's College, and Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. His research focusses on the operation of multilateralism, particularly practices of social pressure and pressure management in diplomacy, global governance, and international legal processes. His book Lawmaking under Pressure: International Humanitarian Law and Internal Armed Conflict (Cornell University Press, 2020) received the 2021 Francis Lieber award.Additional ResourcesHelen M Kinsella and Giovanni Mantilla, 'Contestation before Compliance: History, Politics, and Power in International Humanitarian Law' (2020) 64(3) International Studies Quarterly 649.Helen Kinsella, 'Settler Empire and the United States: Francis Lieber on the Laws of War' (2023) 117(2) American Political Science Review 629.  Vasuki Nesiah, International Conflict Feminism: Theory, Practice, Challenges (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2024)Thomas Gregory, Weaponizing Civilian Protection (Oxford University Press, 2025)Tom Dannenbaum, 'Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture' (2021) 22(2) Chicago Journal of International Law 368.Boyd Van Dijk, Preparing for War: The Making of the Geneva Conventions (Oxford University Press, 2022) Craig Jones, The War Lawyers: The United States, Israel and Juridical Warfare (Oxford University Press, 2020)Janina Dill, Legitimate Targets? Social Construction, International Law and US Bombing (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

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.

Members of armed forces receive international humanitarian law (IHL) training as a matter of course, but they are not the only actors who must apply this body of law; lawyers within governments, international organizations, and NGOs all have roles in this regard. Did they have the opportunity to study IHL? And contemporary armed conflicts have made IHL compliance an issue on university campuses around the world. But do students have access to IHL courses? In this post, international law professor Marina Sharpe answers these questions in relation to Canadian law schools, finding that while IHL is not widely offered, student interest in the subject is strong.

Private businesses that operate in situations of armed conflict, do business with a government or other entity involved in an armed conflict, or may do so in the future, should be aware of relevant rules of international humanitarian law (IHL). In this post, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Australian Red Cross Society and French Red Cross Society describe a new publication that introduces the most relevant rules of IHL and explains why and how private businesses need to respect them.

In the midst of a raging conflict, how can you tell the difference between a civilian and a combatant? In this extra-special episode of Humanitarian Conversations, RedR Australia's CEO Dr. Helen Durham sits down with international lawyer, Firouzeh, to discuss the power and complexities of international humanitarian law (IHL). Firouzeh is an expert in IHL and human rights law. She's worked for Swiss NGO Geneva Call since 2018 and is currently their country director for Myanmar. Geneva Call is a unique organisation which works with non-state armed groups to help protect civilians in times of armed conflicts. In this thought-provoking chat, Firouzeh and Helen discuss the challenges of the current crisis in Myanmar and how difficult it is to define a ‘civilian' in this conflict. Firouzeh also explains why Myanmar is one of the most intense conflicts in the world today, and how promoting international humanitarian law with defacto armed groups can protect vulnerable civilians who are caught in the crossfire—saving lives and restoring some humaneness to armed conflicts. Following this, Helen and Sally also chat more broadly about the state of IHL during today's conflicts, and what all humanitarian and development workers should know about IHL before heading out into the field.  You can join our conversations on LinkedIn, X and Facebook.  Read the transcript here. Hosts: Sally Cunningham and Dr. Helen Durham  Guest: Firouzeh  Producer, engineer and composer: Jill Farrar 

Gender can still be a confusing and contested subject for international humanitarian law (IHL) and military practitioners. But just as practitioners keep abreast of astonishing technological advancement, and states continue to dedicate significant – and, in numerous contexts, increasing – national spending on defence and security, it is high time that the equal protection of civilians is invested in, too. Gender inequality remains ingrained across today's conflict-affected contexts, and gender-specific harms shape some of the horrors inflicted on civilians. To encourage parties to armed conflict to take more and better measures to reduce this harm, in 2024 the ICRC, the Swedish Red Cross, and the Nordic Centre for Military Operations published a new report – International Humanitarian Law and a Gender Perspective in the Planning and Conduct of Military Operations – based on an expert meeting with state and military practitioners. In this post, the report's co-authors set out ten legal, policy and operational recommendations to equip armed forces to reduce the gendered risks faced by diverse women, men, girls and boys in armed conflict, and identify good practices from modern militaries. It's time for these to be part-and-parcel of how militaries comply with IHL and related civilian harm reduction measures.

In this episode of The Hockey Hub, Adam Pellerin and Andy Brickley break down the Bruins' early season performance. Brick shares his thoughts on whether the top forward lines just need to win more puck battles or if it's time for some line changes. Plus, Brick makes the case for moving Matthew Poitras up or if signing Tyler Johnson could give the Bruins' top six a boost. Brick also goes in depth on how Boston players like Charlie McAvoy and Hampus Lindholm can improve the team's struggling power play. The guys also look ahead to the Bruins' first-ever matchup against the Utah Hockey Club as Brick shares some stories about what Utah hockey was like when he played on the IHL's Utah Grizzlies. Later, Adam goes 1-on-1 with Gigi Marvin as she reflects on her recent retirement after a legendary hockey career that includes Olympic gold and two silver medals plus playing for the Boston Fleet in their inaugural season. GET NESN 360: https://nesn.com/download-the-nesn-app/   Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/NESN Twitter: https://twitter.com/NESN Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NESN/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nesn TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nesn Twitch: https://twitch.tv/nesn/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Food insecurity remains a critical issue in modern armed conflicts, exacerbated by the mutually reinforcing effects of conflict, economic shocks, and climate change. In response, the ICRC's 2024 Challenges Report emphasizes how compliance with a broad range of rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) can help avoid acute food crises, and highlights a number of contemporary obstacles to achieving such compliance in practice. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Matt Pollard highlights key legal protections under IHL, including the prohibition against using starvation as a method of warfare. He stresses the importance of a much wider range of rules relevant to safeguarding civilian access to essential resources like food and water, and outlines how avoiding unduly narrow interpretations of such IHL rules is essential to reducing food insecurity and its devastating long-term effects during armed conflicts.

Detention by non-state armed groups is a widespread, diverse, and legally complex occurrence in armed conflicts across the globe. In 2023, the ICRC assessed that around 70 non-state armed groups in non-international armed conflicts have detainees. The circumstances of detention can pose serious humanitarian concerns, including ill-treatment and inadequate living conditions for detainees. In this post, part of a series on the Fourth Geneva Convention and the internment of protected persons and drawing upon the 2024 ICRC Challenges Report, ICRC Legal Adviser Tilman Rodenhäuser discusses the prohibition of arbitrary detention under international humanitarian law (IHL) and how this relates to internment by non-state armed groups in the context of non-international armed conflicts.

The Fourth Geneva Convention was the first humanitarian law convention dedicated to protections for civilians during armed conflict. Amongst its numerous protective rules, it also provides the main rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the exceptional practice of internment of protected persons – detention of such persons for security reasons during international armed conflict. In this post, and in commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions this year, Group Captain Tim Wood, Provost Marshal of the New Zealand Defence Force, shares his views and practical insights with regards to procedures for internment review of civilians. Drawing on operational experience, he considers some of the characteristics of review bodies which are essential for them to properly fulfil their role.

When the very first Geneva Convention was adopted in 1864, it was the culmination of several interwoven humanitarian projects of the ICRC's principal founder, Henry Dunant. One of those ambitions was the conception, standardization, and integration into what would become known as international humanitarian law (IHL) of the distinctive emblem of the Convention. Designed to signal the specific protections IHL accords to the medical services and certain humanitarian operations, the emblem – today the red cross, red crescent, and red crystal – is displayed on different persons and objects in the physical world, including on buildings, transports, units, equipment, and personnel that are accorded these protections. Over its 160-year history, the distinctive emblem has saved countless lives. Today, the ICRC is again engaged in a project to conceive, standardize, and integrate into IHL a means to identify those very same specific protections, but in a way the drafters of the original 1864 Geneva Convention could not have imagined: a digital emblem specifically designed to identify the digital assets of the medical services and certain humanitarian operations. In this post, building on previous work on this topic, ICRC Legal Adviser Samit D'Cunha summarizes some of the key milestones of the history and development of the distinctive emblem and explores how these milestones serve as a lodestone – or compass – for the Digital Emblem Project's path forward.

The desire to develop technological solutions to help militaries in their decision-making processes is not new. However, more recently, we have witnessed militaries incorporating increasingly complex forms of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems (AI DSS) in their decision-making process, including decisions on the use of force. The novelty of this development is that the process by which these AI DSS function challenges the human's ability to exercise judgement in military decision-making processes. This potential erosion of human judgement raises several legal, humanitarian and ethical challenges and risks, especially in relation to military decisions that have a significant impact on people's lives, their dignity, and their communities. It is in light of this development that we must urgently and in earnest discuss how these systems are used and their impact on people affected by armed conflict. With this post, Wen Zhou, Legal Adviser with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and Anna Rosalie Greipl, Researcher at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, launch a new series on artificial intelligence (AI) in military decision-making. To start the discussion, they outline some of the challenges and risks, as well as the potential, that pertain to the use of AI DSS in preserving human judgement in legal determinations on the use of force. They also propose some measures and constraints regarding the design and use of AI DSS in these decision-making processes that can inform current and future debates on military AI governance, in order to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) and support mitigating the risk of harm to people affected by those decisions.

Next week marks the 75th anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Against a backdrop of over 120 armed conflicts worldwide, this should prompt us not to celebrate, but to reflect: how were these now universally accepted humanitarian norms drafted, and are they still fit for purpose today? In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Ellen Policinski examines how the Geneva Conventions are interpreted and applied today, providing concrete examples from the ICRC's updated Commentaries. She goes on to investigate the recurring critique that international humanitarian law (IHL) is somehow outdated, examining who benefits from the narrative that the Geneva Conventions and IHL more generally are not appropriate legal tools to govern armed conflicts today.

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)

Warfare is far more complicated than throwing some troops with equipment onto a wide-open field and seeing who wins. There are hospitals, homes, factories, and many other things that make decisions exceptionally complicated for both soldiers and the people who live where war happens. Commander Marc-André Vary is a Legal Officer, one of his jobs is to help commanders and soldiers understand how the Law of Armed Conflict applies when there are only seconds to make the right choice.Feel free to contact Captain Adam Orton with any comments or questions:armyconnect-connectionarmee@forces.gc.caConnect with the Canadian Army on social media:Facebook  | X (Twitter) | Instagram | YouTubeVisit Forces.ca if you are considering a career in the Army.Copyright Information© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2024

In this episode, Professor Monica Hakimi of Columbia discusses the international law governing sieges, how it interacts with IHL generally, and its application to the conflict in Gaza.

Around two thirds of ICRC operations are in Muslim countries where armed conflicts are in progress. Our ability to understand the connections and differences between international humanitarian law (IHL) and Islamic law can make a crucial difference in our operational work and in our ability to build trust and respect with local communities. But how can we do this in the most effective way? As part of commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions this year, ICRC's legal adviser for Islamic law and jurisprudence, Ahmed Al-Dawoody, looks at some of the parallels between IHL and Islamic law, and considers the critical importance of engagement between the two in today's world.

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

7:35 a.m. - Dr. Daniel Ennis – President, Delta State University Topic: Update from DSU, IHL backing their recent changes to doing away with some of their offered degrees. We also want to briefly discuss their upcoming Night of Champions. 8:05 a.m. - Marshall Fisher – Former Commissioner, MS DPS & Former DEA Agent Topic: Thoughts on DPS, Corrections, Narcotics, etc. Questions on the actions of the Secret Service and also the epidemic of youth crime across the state and nation. 8:35 a.m. - Dixon Williams – SuperTalk MS Sports Director Topic: Preview of weekend sports, biggest sports news of the week, etc.

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

Based on the ICRC's firsthand observations in and around cities in conflict across the globe, an evolved form of one of the oldest methods of warfare – siege and encirclement – remains a persistent feature of today's urban battles. Civilians trapped within besieged areas or those displaced from them endure some of the most horrific humanitarian conditions. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Abby Zeith takes a closer look at contemporary urban siege and encirclement and the civilian harm that they cause, how international humanitarian law (IHL) regulates such methods of warfare, and why states and their policymakers and militaries need to do more to understand, prepare for, and mitigate civilian harm caused by such operations in the future.

For more than a decade, states have met at the UN in Geneva to discuss the governance of autonomous weapon systems (AWS). One pandemic, several real-world cases of artificial intelligence (AI) being used in targeting decisions, and numerous meetings later, there is a growing consensus among states that the challenges posed by AWS should be addressed through both prohibitions and restrictions, a so-called ‘two-tier' approach. But while there is progress on the basic structure (i.e. two tiers), the actual content of these tiers is debated. To help states elaborate on possible elements of a two-tiered approach to the governance of AWS, Laura Bruun from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) points to three lessons from past arms control negotiations that can be applied to the AWS debate: First, a prohibition does not need to be grounded in a clearly defined class of weapons, second, restrictions can be used to clarify what international humanitarian law (IHL) requires in the specific context of AWS, and third, if there is will (and a need), two-tiered instruments can be grounded in concerns beyond IHL.

The Fourth Geneva Convention was the first humanitarian law convention dedicated to protections for civilians during armed conflict. Amongst its numerous protective rules, it also provides the main rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the exceptional practice of internment of protected persons – detention of such persons for security reasons during international armed conflict. In this post, part of a series that delves into the grounds and procedures for internment contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention, Camilla Guldahl Cooper, Associate Professor at the Norwegian Defence Command and Staff College, gives some context to certain rules in the Fourth Geneva Convention which apply to the initial decision to intern a protected person. She elaborates on what these rules require and how they have been taken into account in Norway's military manual.

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.

Eye in the Sky (2015), directed by Gavin Hood from a script by Guy Hibbert, depicts the operation of a multinational team aimed at high-level operatives from the Al-Shabaab terrorist group in Nairobi, Kenya. When the British army learns of the location of the suspects,  it plans to capture them. But surveillance reveals the suspects are preparing two new recruits to carry out a suicide bombing. British military officials, with their U.S. partner, seek to shift the operation from capture to kill. Officials must decide whether to authorize a lethal drone strike to avoid a possible terrorist attack, despite the possibility of civilian casualties, including of a young girl who is nearby. Eye in the Sky, which stars Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Barkhad Abdi, and Alan Rickman (in his last screen role), depicts the new reality of drone warfare and the complex legal and moral issues it raises. I'm joined by Craig Martin, Professor of Law at Washburn University School of Law and the creator and host of the JIB/JAB: The Laws of War Podcast (https://jibjabpodcast.com), which features top and upcoming experts in different aspects of the laws of war.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction4:41     Background for the military operation6:42.    Does the law of armed conflict even apply?13:14   A drone strike in a friendly country not at war16:54   Why Kenya's consent and involvement matters19:10   Who is targetable under IHL?26:31    Applying the jus in bello factors30:42    The policy and strategic issues34:40    "Revolutions are fueled by postings on YouTube"36:52    The “Trolley Problem”40:27    Is targeted killing a misnomer?44:23   "Group Think” in drone operations47:00    The impact of drone warfare on the participants51:44    The role of lawyers55:22    The “double tap” and the movie's clear war crime58:43    Other great movies about the laws of war Further reading:“‘Eye in the Sky' film puts the use of drones in the spotlight,” PBS News Hour (Mar 18, 2016) (transcript)Martin, Craig, “A Means-Methods Paradox and the Legality of Drone Strikes in Armed Conflict,” 19 Int'l J. Hum. Rights 142 (2015)Melzer, Nils, Targeted Killing in International Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2009)Milanovic, Marko, “Eye in the Sky,” EJIL: Talk (May 9, 2016)Stimson Center, Recommendations and Report of the Task Force on U.S. Drone Policy (2d ed. Apr. 2015) The White House, Remarks by the President at the National Defense University (May 23, 2013)Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

The International Court of Justice is currently hearing South Africa's case accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. Professor Geoffrey Corn from Texas Tech University joins us to explain how we got here, the case's significance, and why the claims of genocide are baseless.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Geoffrey Corn Show Notes: Explainer: What You Need to Know about South Africa's Baseless Genocide Accusation Against Israel Go Deeper: 5 Reasons Why the Events in Gaza Are Not “Genocide”  Listen – People of the Pod on the Israel-Hamas War:  Countering the Denial and Distortion of the 10/7 Hamas Attack 4-Year-Old Hostage Abigail Idan is Free–Her Family is On a Mission to #BringThemAllHome What Happens Next: AJC's Avital Leibovich on the Hostage Deal and Challenges Ahead What Would You Do If Your Son Was Kidnapped by Hamas? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Geoffrey Corn: Manya Brachear Pashman:   The International Court of Justice is holding its first hearings in a case filed by South Africa, accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. While it could take years for the panel of judges to rule on the genocide accusation, South Africa has asked the judges to issue a restraining order of sorts in the coming weeks that could among other things, call on Israel to halt its effort to root out Hamas and bring home the remaining hostages, at least until a verdict is reached. Here to explain what's at stake and the questions that the court will need to weigh is Professor Geoffrey Corn, Director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University. Professor Corn. Welcome to People of the Pod. Geoffrey Corn: Thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you are an expert in international humanitarian law and the law of war, which to some those terms might seem contradictory, or are the? Are they actually one in the same?  Geoffrey Corn: No, they refer to the identical branch of international law, historically, we call this branch of law, the laws and customs of war. Before the end of World War II, it was referred to as the law of war. And then, of course, with the advent of the United Nations Charter, technically war was prohibited. And states engaged in armed conflicts.  And so the name evolved for many years to be referred to as the law of armed conflict, the Loack, that's still what it's called. And in official US circles, we have the Department of Defense law of war manual, and the army law of armed conflict manual, most of the world today refers to it as international humanitarian law. And that, as you know, it can be misleading because it suggests that it's really focused on human rights. In fact, IHL, or international humanitarian law is a synonym for the law of armed conflict. It's the law that regulates the conduct of hostilities, during conflicts between states or between states and non-state groups, and protects victims of war. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's cover another basic distinction or definition that will help listeners decipher all of this, the charges that I spoke of in the introduction, they had been brought in the International Court of Justice. And now that's the 15 judge panel of the United Nations.  Not the International Criminal Court, which is also in The Hague, but charges individuals with war crimes. So can you explain for our audience the purpose of the International Court of Justice? Geoffrey Corn: Sure, the International Court of Justice is part of the mosaic of the Charter of the United Nations, a treaty that was created in the aftermath of World War II, to manifest the international community's determination that wars not be the mechanism by which states resolve their disputes. So there are a variety of mechanisms built into the Charter of the United Nations, the one people are most familiar with is the Security Council, which is vested by the treaty with enforcement power.  So the Security Council has the authority to authorize measures for the restoration of international peace and security. So for example, in 1991, when the coalition conducted military action against Iraq to force it out of Kuwait, that was done under the authority of the Charter of the United Nations and the Security Council resolution to restore international peace and security.   One of the four components of the United Nations is the International Court of Justice. It is a successor to a prior international court that sat in the Hague, and its singular jurisdiction is over disputes between states, or to give advisory opinions on international law as requested by the Security Council or the General Assembly. But the primary function of the International Court of Justice is to serve almost like an arbitration mechanism when states have disputes so that they can resolve them in accordance with international law without resorting to force to resolve those disputes. And so it has no jurisdiction over individuals.  It is, as you know, very different from the International Criminal Court, which is a treaty based criminal tribunal, and its jurisdiction is dependent on whether or not the individual is a national of one of the treaty parties, or whether the alleged crimes occurred in the territory of one of the treaty parties is Israel is not a party to that treaty, nor is the United States. But Palestine is. They've accepted Palestine as a member of the court, which means the prosecutor for the international criminal court has jurisdiction to investigate and pursue charges for any alleged war crimes that he believes have occurred in Palestinian territory, which includes Gaza. So two very different courts, very different consequences for their assertion of jurisdiction. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So now, both Israel and South Africa are signatories of the 1948 Genocide Convention. That is precisely why these charges have been brought to the ICJ. It's because they are both signatories of that treaty. Geoffrey Corn: Yeah, so I wouldn't say charges, I would say accusation. Right, because when we say charge, we tend to think of a criminal accusation.  Let's remember that an accusation is just that. It's not proof, it doesn't prove anything. If you read the filing by South Africa, it really is an exercise in selective fact assertion and ignoring inconvenient facts, there's a lot more to this story that we're going to see when we see the Israeli filing in response. So the Genocide Convention says, if there's a dispute between signatories or contracting parties to the treaty, they agree to allow the International Court of Justice to resolve that dispute. So one of the aspects of South Africa's filing is that they alleged that they've made a number of diplomatic forays to Israel demanding that they explain how what they're doing is legal and asserting that it's genocide. And Israel has not responded to those diplomatic forays, and therefore, that's created a dispute within the meaning of the treaty. And one of the things the court is going to have to resolve is whether there is in fact, a dispute between two members of the treaty as a jurisdictional predicate to even reaching the question of whether they should impose preliminary measures. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And does that precede the ruling on provisional measures?  Geoffrey Corn: It will be it will be part of the ruling. In any in any court of law, there's always a question of jurisdiction. Now, in most cases, it's not complicated. If you commit a crime where you live, the state has jurisdiction over that crime, but in the international realm, it's often a matter of debate as to whether or not the tribunal that has been requested to adjudicate an issue is actually vested under the law with the power, that's what jurisdiction means the power to resolve that issue. So the first issue that the court's going to have to resolve is whether it in fact, has jurisdiction pursuant to the terms of the Genocide Convention. And then if it says it does, then it will go to the question of whether there is a compelling case for preliminary measures. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So we know South Africa has a history of anti-Israel positions, it has historically sided with the PLO, Palestinian Liberation Organization and it now appears to be supporting the Hamas terrorists that govern Gaza. There also might be some political posturing going on here ahead of a national election. But how did we get here? A genocide claim against the Jewish state.  Geoffrey Corn: I think the answer to that is twofold. I mean, the first is that there is a widespread public perception that the level of carnage being inflicted as a result of Israeli Defense Force operations in Gaza is intolerable. And it's created a perception among many that the Israelis are actually not just trying to defeat Hamas' military capability–they are trying to destroy in part the Palestinian population of Gaza, that that's their intent.  Now, I personally believe that that is a highly erroneous inference to draw from the facts on the ground. But this is part of Hamas' information campaign. This should be unsurprising from the inception of this conflict, they know that they cannot defeat Israel in battle.  And this is one of the ironies of Israel's military struggle against Hamas. And I would say even if it occurs, Hezbollah. These highly capable organized military groups are under no delusion that they have the capability to confront the Israeli Defense Force and defeat it on the battlefield. For them, combat is not about defeating your enemy.  For them combat serves their information campaign. They use combat to create conditions to advance their strategic information campaign of delegitimizing Israel, but more importantly, in creating pressure both within Israel and externally to force Israel to terminate its operations before it achieves its combat objectives, which are much more traditional, which is to defeat your enemy on the battlefield.  So if you think about it, for Israel, what does operational success look like? It looks like Hamas' military capability has been completely destroyed. The word destroy is a military doctrinal term, and it means that you are combat and effective without substantial reconstitution. What is Hamas' is operational objective? It's to be there when the proverbial and literal dust settles.  And that means they've got to do something that compels Israel to stop before it achieves its military objective of destroying Hamas. They can't do that by force. They can only do that by getting the international community to pressure Israel to terminate its operations before they've achieved these objectives. And the best ammunition Hamas has to do that is creating the reality and the perception of the indifference to the human suffering that's occurring in Gaza.  So this is all connected to a strategic objective of Hamas. And that's why the most prominent statistic that we hear day in and day out is what? The civilian death toll in Gaza, which ironically, never apparently includes an enemy combatant. I guess the IDF is fighting shadows, because apparently they're not killing any enemy, because every casualty is asserted to be a civilian.  And I don't want to, in any way, minimize the tragedy of human loss and war. But you cannot find an enemy that's determined to create conditions where you have to inflict civilian casualties without doing so. And that's the strategy from inception that has snowballed into a public perception that Israel's objective is much more nefarious than simply defeating Hamas. That's one factor. The other factor to be to be candid, is the terribly bombastic statements of certain Israeli government officials that fuel this perception that you have an ulterior motive here that's separate from just achieving a legitimate military goal, and the failure of the Netanyahu administration to be more aggressive in sanctioning or isolating the officials in the government who make those foolish statements.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   To be fair, I should note that Prime Minister Netanyahu did post a statement to social media after this interview was recorded in which he insisted that Israel has no intention of displacing the Palestinian population from Gaza and permanently occupying the Strip, despite those calls from some Israeli government officials.  Israel's legal team is quite likely going to emphasize the extensive precautionary measures taken by the IDF to minimize civilian casualities and they will also quite likely emphasize the ongoing humanitarian relief being facilitated by Israel since mid-October – tens of thousands of tons of medical supplies, food, water, shelter equipment. Still, that doesn't change the level of carnage you mentioned, which is incredibly disturbing for all of us.  You predicted early on that the notion of proportionality would become an issue. You predicted that back in October, regarding Israel's response, and I'm curious if you could kind of explain the notion of proportionality, the misconceptions about proportionality when it comes to warfare. Geoffrey Corn: So it's a critically important question, because if you read the 84-page submission by South Africa, they make what they allege to be the indiscriminate nature of Israeli military action, a centerpiece of their proof of genocide. o when we talk about proportionality in war, there are two different aspects of proportionality we have to understand. The first relates to the right of the state to defend itself. And that really functions no differently than if you were walking down the street and somebody attacked you under the law of self defense. You are allowed to take self help measures to protect yourself, but those measures have to be proportional to the threat. It is a mistake to assume that that is only limited to tit for tat response. They fire a missile, you're allowed to fire a missile. If someone swung a punch at you on the street. The law doesn't say you're only allowed to swing one punch back and then wait for them to punch you again. You're allowed to take reasonable measures.  So if we think about Israel's action of self defense against Hamas, what do we know? We know Hamas represents an ongoing threat of significant military and terrorist violence against Israel. And the only way that Israel would be able to be confident that it's restored its security, the security of its population, the security of its territory, would be to take military action to completely destroy Hamas' military capability.  So the way that that self defense objective is translated into military terms, in the military as a whole, you need to do what is necessary to be able to come back to the political leadership and say, the people in southern Israel are safe again. And so the idea that Israel should just terminate operations and build a wall is unrealistic, because they tried that already. They've had more limited military action against Hamas in the past, and Hamas has demonstrated over and over again, an ability to bypass their defensive measures and inflict death and injury on Israelis.  Once you're fighting, there's another component of proportionality, which is the one that we're all focused on now. And that has to do with what we call the incidental or collateral consequences of attacking a legitimate target. So if I'm going to attack a building, because there's an enemy fighter in the building, and I know that in doing so, I cannot avoid killing civilians, I have to make a proportionality assessment under the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law. For each individual attack, the commander has to make a judgment.  First, the commander has to assess the military value of attacking the target, then the commander has to assess the unavoidable civilian risks that will be created by conducting that attack. If the commander concludes that the risk, the harm to civilians would be excessive, compared to the concrete and direct military advantage, then the attack would be considered disproportionate and indiscriminate within the meaning of international law.  So if I were to put a question to your audience: you have an enemy commander, you identify him in a bunker, that's the enemy has put under a congregation of civilians deliberately, maybe the bunker is under a school. And he's a high-level enemy commander. And you've done everything you can to get civilians to evacuate. But you know that the only way you can kill that commander is to conduct an attack that will result in 20 civilian casualties.  If we took a poll right now, is 20 civilian casualties excessive in relation to the value of attacking that target–we'd probably have as many answers as we had participants. So the reality is that when we look at an aggregate number, even if we take Hamas as numbers at face value–23,000 civilians have been killed. And we say that proves all of the attacks were indiscriminate. It's a complete distortion of the process of analysis. Because you don't do an aggregate number, you look at the individual attack, you have to decide what was the value of the attack? What was the risk that was anticipated? What measures did the attacking side do to mitigate risks? What measures did the defending side do to exacerbate risk? And you put all that into the equation. So there's been a complete distortion of the way this is actually supposed to function. And what we've created and what South Africa has done in its filing is it's created, almost a strict liability standard. If you kill X amount of civilians, your attack is indiscriminate and it violates the proportionality rule. I always ask a question in response, if you tell me that killing 100 civilians as a consequence of killing a high level enemy commander is too much. How many are okay? Can you give me a number? Is 50 okay, 20,10. There's no book. There's no manual, there's no equation.  And that's why my view from inception has been the much better mechanism for mitigating civilian risks are the steps you take before the attack to reduce that risk. And when we look at that, we see no moral equivalency because you have the Israelis trying to figure out ways to reduce civilian risk, and we have Hamas deliberately engaging in conduct that exacerbates civilian risks. Manya Brachear Pashman: There's been a longstanding concern that in the United Nations, Israel faces a double standard. Other nations don't face this kind of scrutiny when they are involved in armed conflicts, though this court has taken up separate Genocide Convention cases filed by Ukraine against Russia and another filed by Gambia against Myanmar. So is this once again a double standard or is this different?  Geoffrey Corn: Here's one of the ironies, because the effects of combat had been so visible in Gaza. The assumption is we should be dwelling on whether or not Israel is conducting war illegally. Hamas has fired over 10,000 rockets at Israel, they don't even pretend to be trying to attack military targets. They're just firing rockets at the civilian population, which is the blatant first level of violation. Now, fortunately, Israel has prevented most of those attacks from achieving their intended objective. But that doesn't mean they weren't illegal, because the law doesn't focus on whether you achieve your illegal result. It focuses on what you're trying to do.   So when people like Bernie Sanders writes an op-ed in the New York Times and says, Okay, I can see that what Hamas did on October 7 was a war crime. Well, first off, that's, you know, I mean, that's self evident. But what's ironic is he doesn't acknowledge that what they've been doing ever since October 7 is war crimes. Every time they fire another rocket it Israel. They are the ones that are blatantly an indisputably violating the law of armed conflict. And yet it's the Israeli Defense Force that is the subject of international scrutiny persistently And it's no surprise because this is the nature of modern warfare. It's a bigotry of disparate expectations. And the Israelis know it, and they're not released from their obligation because they're fighting an illicit enemy. But it is it is corrosive to fail to acknowledge that the pernicious tactics of that enemy are largely responsible for the level of civilian suffering destruction, that is becomes unavoidable when you're fighting them.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   There are still more than 50 hostages still being held by Hamas, their well-being unknown. Does that change the equation for these court proceedings or the court's decision on provisional measures? Or is that a variable for the International Criminal Court to take up? Geoffrey Corn: There's no doubt that Hamas' has objectives and its stated purpose is to commit genocide of the Jewish people in Israel. There's not going to be but what about them argument. I don't see that happening. I think it becomes much more significant for the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, because hostage taking inhumane deprivation of liberty or war crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. We know Hamas is not going to prosecute its own individuals.  And so the credibility of that court is going to, I think, demand that they investigate and prosecute the summary execution of civilians on October 7, the sexual violence against victims, the hostage taking, the deprivation of access to the International Committee of the Red Cross. All of these are blatant violations of the law of war, and are within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. So if I were the ICC prosecutor, and I would look at this as objectively as I could, I would look at the conduct of the Israeli Defense Forces and whether or not they've taken corrective measures against what I believe were violations of the law. No military is perfect. There have been examples of Israeli soldiers engaging in ill discipline and unjustified conduct in Gaza. And the Israeli Defense Forces have an obligation to investigate and discipline their own. I would look at how effectively that had been done.  I would look at Hamas' actions. And if I believed there was credible evidence of a violation of the charter that was being ignored by the institutional leadership, I would indict. And if I never got them in front of the court, that's not my problem. My objective is to demonstrate that there have been violations that are worthy of being adjudicated. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much, Professor Corn. I really appreciate you breaking this down for us. Geoffrey Corn: Thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Dr. Robert Williams, Executive Director of the USC Shoah Foundation. He joined us to discuss the history and tendency to deny atrocities committed against Jews and the foundation's added mission of collecting the testimonies of October 7 survivors. 

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.

Todays Topics #RIP John Hewitt Joe Lozito of the Coliseum Chronicles:The Penalty Box Podcast joins the show to give his thoughts on the top IHL fighters of the 90s Welcome to the 4th Line Voice #EnforcerBasedPodcasting presented by The Hockey Podcast NetworkJoin 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 344#DraftKings promo code THPNGambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler or visit w w w dot 1800 gambler dot net. In New York, call 877-8-HOPE NY or text HOPE N Y (467369). In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling call 888-789-7777 or visit c c p g dot org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (KS). Licensee partner Golden Nugget Lake Charles (LA). 21 + age varies by jurisdiction. Void in ONT. Bonus bets expire one hundred sixty eight hours after issuance. See sportsbook dot draft kings dot com slash football terms for eligibility and deposit restrictions, terms, and responsible gaming resources

Todays Topics #RIP John Hewitt Joe Lozito of the Coliseum Chronicles:The Penalty Box Podcast joins the show to give his thoughts on the top IHL fighters of the 90s 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 344 #DraftKings promo code THPN Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler or visit w w w dot 1800 gambler dot net. In New York, call 877-8-HOPE NY or text HOPE N Y (467369). In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling call 888-789-7777 or visit c c p g dot org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (KS). Licensee partner Golden Nugget Lake Charles (LA). 21 + age varies by jurisdiction. Void in ONT. Bonus bets expire one hundred sixty eight hours after issuance. See sportsbook dot draft kings dot com slash football terms for eligibility and deposit restrictions, terms, and responsible gaming resources Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Todays Topics #RIP John Hewitt Joe Lozito of the Coliseum Chronicles:The Penalty Box Podcast joins the show to give his thoughts on the top IHL fighters of the 90s 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 344 #DraftKings promo code THPN Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler or visit w w w dot 1800 gambler dot net. In New York, call 877-8-HOPE NY or text HOPE N Y (467369). In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling call 888-789-7777 or visit c c p g dot org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (KS). Licensee partner Golden Nugget Lake Charles (LA). 21 + age varies by jurisdiction. Void in ONT. Bonus bets expire one hundred sixty eight hours after issuance. See sportsbook dot draft kings dot com slash football terms for eligibility and deposit restrictions, terms, and responsible gaming resources Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A discussion with Tom Dannenbaum, a professor of international law at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, on his work on the war crime of starvation. We delve into the proper interpretation of the IHL prohibition on starvation as a method of warfare, and the war crime of intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in the Rome Statute of the ICC, considering what precisely constitutes the criminal act, and what exactly is the nature of the wrong that the crime seeks to address. We go on to discuss how this should inform our understanding of the Israeli siege of Gaza. For more info and links to the materials, visit our website at: https://jibjabpodcast.com

An in depth discussion on International Humanitarian Law in regard to current events with the Ukranian MOD, MAJ Inna Zavorotko.

Chapter 5: Creating Systems that WorkCreate Daily Habits and RitualsEstablish a Daily RoutineManon Rheaume was the first woman to play in an American men's sports league. She signed a contract with the Tampa Bay Lightning in 1992 and played in exhibition games until signing her first professional contract that same year with IHL team, the Atlanta Knights. Rheaume had a huge dream to accomplish something no woman had ever accomplished before.  But she had a plan to get there.  (Manon Rhéaume – the First Woman to Play in an American Men's pro Sports League, 2021). Rheaume said, “If you persevere long enough, if you do the right things long enough, the right things will happen.” Do you ever feel like you're just spinning your wheels? That no matter how hard you work, you can't seem to get ahead? You're not alone. Many athletes feel this way. The way to achieve goals is by creating systems that work. The good news is that there are specific steps you can take to create those systems. In Atomic Habits, James Clear writes, “You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems. Your goal is your desired outcome. Your system is the collection of daily habits that will get you there" (Clear, 2018). Before you start setting goals, it's important to take a look at your current systems and how they work for you or if they fail you. Create Daily Habits and Rituals Daily habits are important because they are the building blocks of your system. They are the things you do every day that will help you reach your goals. If your habits are inconsistent or if they don't align with your goals and values, you will not be able to achieve success.