Podcast appearances and mentions of oona hathaway

Janet and Steph sit down with Oona Hathaway to ask if international law as a concept is still relevant and if such a seeming crisis would tear down the idea of the rule of law or if it might sharpen minds and build a new different consensus

Oona Hathaway, professor of international law at Yale University, addresses President Trump's plans to expand US territory into Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada. She discusses international law, the causes of the decline in interstate war, the difference between norms and laws, the problem of enforcement, tensions between norms against conquest and the need for a negotiated peace in the Russia-Ukraine war, among other topics. Show NotesOona A. Hathaway, Scott J. Shapiro, The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World, Simon & Schuster, 2017. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Trump Encourages Secession and Threatens Civil War, He Is the Gift That Keeps on Giving to China and Russia | Strengthening the Laws of War as Non-combatants Die in Gaza and Ukraine | The Inevitability of Trump 250 Years in the Making With the U.S. Captive to Its Contentious Past backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

Among the many war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine are large-scale efforts to deport Ukrainian children to Russia. Thousands of children have already been taken to Russian camps and facilities, leading the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for two senior Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, in March 2023. Despite the arrest warrants, the deportations have continued. A new report from the Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab identified 314 individual Ukrainian children that Russian officials transferred from Ukraine to Russia for coerced adoption and fostering, acts that likely constitute grave violations of international law. What are the report's key findings? And how might they contribute to efforts toward accountability, including potential new criminal charges against Russian officials? Joining the show to discuss the report are Oona Hathaway and Nathaniel Raymond. Oona is a Professor at Yale Law School and an Executive Editor at Just Security. Nathaniel is the Executive Director of the Humanitarian Research Lab and a Lecturer in the Department of the Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases at the Yale School of Public Health. Show Notes:  Nathaniel Raymond (@nattyray11)Oona A. Hathaway (@oonahathaway)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Oona's Just Security article (with Madeline Babin and Isabel Gensler) “New Report Documents Russia's Systematic Program of Coerced Adoption and Fostering of Ukraine's Children”Just Security's Russia-Ukraine War coverageJust Security's International Criminal Court coverageJust Security's International Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

A Better Way to Freeze (and Seize?) Russian Assets? Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, there has been talk of what international law doctrines might be utilized to induce Russia to back off. One of those doctrines that has been whispered about is now, thanks to a wonderful new article by our guest, international law guru and Yale Law professor, Oona Hathaway, is that of Countermeasures. Oona and her co authors not only explain the law of countermeasures, but argue that these legal principles naturally extend into a doctrine of “collective countermeasures”. We ask Oona about these doctrines and their scope, particularly in the context of Russia and Ukraine. She argues that the doctrine, properly understood and applied, is (and should be) narrow. To quote Spider Man (maybe), “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”. Producer: Leanna Doty

When it comes to discussion about the conflict in Gaza, there is an endless parade of commentators on both sides telling us what is right or wrong, legitimate or illegal, a crime or a justified attack, but in all that debate and discussion the actual international laws of war often get pushed to the sidelines. We're planning to do a series of episodes on this conflict in the coming     weeks, but we wanted to start by getting a baseline understand on the laws of war with an international expert.Oona Hathaway is a professor of international law and a member of the Advisory Committee on International Law at the United States Department of State since 2005. For decades, she's been exploring the complicated legal questions that are coming to the forefront since October 7th which makes her the perfect guest for this episode.

Ravi breaks down what you need to know about the second controversial flag spotted outside one of Justice Alito's properties, the leaked OpenAI documents, and why a majority of Americans wrongly believe the U.S. is in a recession. Mayor Eric Adams wants to make New York City the “City of Yes.” Thesis Driven's Brad Hargreaves joins Ravi to discuss the mayor's rezoning proposal, which would roll back regulations that have long hindered housing development. Ravi and Brad also take a look at the current and future state of key influencers on the housing market, from fertility and marriage rates to immigration. Finally, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that it has applied for arrest warrants for Hamas and Israeli leaders. Oona Hathaway, Yale Law professor and international law expert, joins the pod to help explain what the ICC is and talk with Ravi about how Israel, Hamas, and the U.S. could respond. Leave us a voicemail with your thoughts on the show! 321-200-0570 Subscribe to our feed on Spotify: http://bitly.ws/zC9K Subscribe to our Substack: https://thelostdebate.substack.com/ Follow The Branch on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thebranchmedia/ Follow The Branch on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebranchmedia Follow The Branch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thebranchmedia The Branch website: http://thebranchmedia.org/ The Branch channel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/channel/the-branch/id6483055204  Lost Debate is also available on the following platforms:  Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lost-debate/id1591300785 Google: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vTERJNTc1ODE3Mzk3Nw  iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-lost-debate-88330217/ Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/752ca262-2801-466d-9654-2024de72bd1f/the-lost-debate

There's no question that Hamas violated international law when it attacked Israel on October 7, and as it continues to hold hostages in Gaza. But more than seven months into Israel's response, the issue of whether Israel is violating international law—or even committing war crimes—is coming to a head. Washington is debating holding up deliveries of weapons to Israel. And the International Criminal Court is rumored to be preparing a case against leaders of both Hamas and the Israeli government. What's happening in Gaza may seem unprecedented. But as the legal scholar Oona Hathaway writes in Foreign Affairs, “The conflict in Gaza is an extreme example of the breakdown of the law of war, but it is not an isolated one.” Hathaway is the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale University School of Law and a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In 2014–15, she took leave to serve as special counsel to the general counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense. Foreign Affairs Deputy Editor Kate Brannen spoke with her on May 13 about the causes of that breakdown—and what, if anything, can be done to salvage the rules meant to protect civilians in wartime. You can find transcripts and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview.

Israel Joins Peace Talks in Cairo Amid IDF Escalation in Gaza | Strengthening the Laws of War as Non-combatants Die in Gaza and Ukraine | Brazen Examples of Foreign Governments Buying US Senators and Congressmen backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

Lecture summary: In 2015, the United States military dropped a bomb on a hospital in Afghanistan run by Médecins Sans Frontières, killing forty-two staff and patients. Testifying afterwards before a Senate Committee, General John F. Campbell explained that “[t]he hospital was mistakenly struck.” In 2019, while providing air support to partner forces under attack by ISIS, the U.S. military killed dozens of women and children. Central Command concluded that any civilian deaths “were accidental.” In August 2021, during a rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. military executed a drone strike in Kabul that killed ten civilians, including an aid worker for a U.S. charity and seven children in his family. The Pentagon later admitted it was a “tragic mistake.” In these cases and others like them, no one set out to kill the civilians who died. Such events are usually chalked up as sad but inevitable consequences of war - as regrettable “mistakes.” In this lecture, based on a forthcoming co-authored article, Professor Oona Hathaway will examine the law on “mistakes” in war. She will consider whether and when the law holds individuals and states responsible for “mistakes.” To see how the law works, or fails to work, in practice, she will examine the US military’s own assessments of civilian casualties. She will show that “mistakes” are far more common than generally acknowledged. Some errors are, moreover, the predictable - and avoidable - result of a system that does too little to learn from its mistakes. She will focus her remarks on the United States, both because of its global military operations and because of the power of its example to shape global practices. The United States is far from alone, however. Thus, lessons learned from its failures can be instructive for other states as well.

Lecture summary: In 2015, the United States military dropped a bomb on a hospital in Afghanistan run by Médecins Sans Frontières, killing forty-two staff and patients. Testifying afterwards before a Senate Committee, General John F. Campbell explained that “[t]he hospital was mistakenly struck.” In 2019, while providing air support to partner forces under attack by ISIS, the U.S. military killed dozens of women and children. Central Command concluded that any civilian deaths “were accidental.” In August 2021, during a rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. military executed a drone strike in Kabul that killed ten civilians, including an aid worker for a U.S. charity and seven children in his family. The Pentagon later admitted it was a “tragic mistake.” In these cases and others like them, no one set out to kill the civilians who died. Such events are usually chalked up as sad but inevitable consequences of war - as regrettable “mistakes.”In this lecture, based on a forthcoming co-authored article, Professor Oona Hathaway will examine the law on “mistakes” in war. She will consider whether and when the law holds individuals and states responsible for “mistakes.” To see how the law works, or fails to work, in practice, she will examine the US military's own assessments of civilian casualties. She will show that “mistakes” are far more common than generally acknowledged. Some errors are, moreover, the predictable - and avoidable - result of a system that does too little to learn from its mistakes. She will focus her remarks on the United States, both because of its global military operations and because of the power of its example to shape global practices. The United States is far from alone, however. Thus, lessons learned from its failures can be instructive for other states as well.

Lecture summary: In 2015, the United States military dropped a bomb on a hospital in Afghanistan run by Médecins Sans Frontières, killing forty-two staff and patients. Testifying afterwards before a Senate Committee, General John F. Campbell explained that “[t]he hospital was mistakenly struck.” In 2019, while providing air support to partner forces under attack by ISIS, the U.S. military killed dozens of women and children. Central Command concluded that any civilian deaths “were accidental.” In August 2021, during a rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. military executed a drone strike in Kabul that killed ten civilians, including an aid worker for a U.S. charity and seven children in his family. The Pentagon later admitted it was a “tragic mistake.” In these cases and others like them, no one set out to kill the civilians who died. Such events are usually chalked up as sad but inevitable consequences of war - as regrettable “mistakes.”In this lecture, based on a forthcoming co-authored article, Professor Oona Hathaway will examine the law on “mistakes” in war. She will consider whether and when the law holds individuals and states responsible for “mistakes.” To see how the law works, or fails to work, in practice, she will examine the US military's own assessments of civilian casualties. She will show that “mistakes” are far more common than generally acknowledged. Some errors are, moreover, the predictable - and avoidable - result of a system that does too little to learn from its mistakes. She will focus her remarks on the United States, both because of its global military operations and because of the power of its example to shape global practices. The United States is far from alone, however. Thus, lessons learned from its failures can be instructive for other states as well.

Lecture summary: In 2015, the United States military dropped a bomb on a hospital in Afghanistan run by Médecins Sans Frontières, killing forty-two staff and patients. Testifying afterwards before a Senate Committee, General John F. Campbell explained that “[t]he hospital was mistakenly struck.” In 2019, while providing air support to partner forces under attack by ISIS, the U.S. military killed dozens of women and children. Central Command concluded that any civilian deaths “were accidental.” In August 2021, during a rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. military executed a drone strike in Kabul that killed ten civilians, including an aid worker for a U.S. charity and seven children in his family. The Pentagon later admitted it was a “tragic mistake.” In these cases and others like them, no one set out to kill the civilians who died. Such events are usually chalked up as sad but inevitable consequences of war - as regrettable “mistakes.”In this lecture, based on a forthcoming co-authored article, Professor Oona Hathaway will examine the law on “mistakes” in war. She will consider whether and when the law holds individuals and states responsible for “mistakes.” To see how the law works, or fails to work, in practice, she will examine the US military's own assessments of civilian casualties. She will show that “mistakes” are far more common than generally acknowledged. Some errors are, moreover, the predictable - and avoidable - result of a system that does too little to learn from its mistakes. She will focus her remarks on the United States, both because of its global military operations and because of the power of its example to shape global practices. The United States is far from alone, however. Thus, lessons learned from its failures can be instructive for other states as well.

The Justice Department declined to prosecute President Biden for his handling of classified Obama-era documents found in his former office and at home. In a 345-page report, special counsel Robert Hur wrote, "We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter." Geoff Bennett discussed more with Oona Hathaway, a Yale Law School professor and former special counsel at the Pentagon. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The Justice Department declined to prosecute President Biden for his handling of classified Obama-era documents found in his former office and at home. In a 345-page report, special counsel Robert Hur wrote, "We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter." Geoff Bennett discussed more with Oona Hathaway, a Yale Law School professor and former special counsel at the Pentagon. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

On Friday, January 26, the International Court of Justice issued its Opinion granting provisional measures in South Africa's genocide case against Israel.  At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court did not determine whether Israel's conduct amounts to genocide – that potential determination is left for what is known as the “merits” phase of the case, which will likely occur years from now. Instead, today the Court held that Israel's actions to minimize harm to civilians did not sufficiently remove the risk of irreparable harm and ordered Israel to take specific actions including refraining from acts under the Genocide Convention, preventing and punishing incitement to genocide and taking effective measures to allow for the provision of humanitarian assistance, among others. Joining the show to discuss the Court's Opinion and its implications are law professors Adil Haque, Oona Hathaway, and Yuval Shany. They have each written extensively about the case and its potential impact, including on Just Security. Show Notes: Adil Ahmad Haque (@AdHaque110)Oona A. Hathaway (@oonahathaway) Yuval Shany (@yuvalshany1) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's South Africa v. Israel coverage  Just Security's Israel-Hamas war coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “The World Between Us” by Cory Alstad from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/cory-alstad/the-wound-between-us (License code: GMVY1M06I3QWDKJJ)

Ben and Tommy discuss US airstrikes on the Houthi rebels in Yemen and why they are unlikely to deter them, and provide background and context on the Houthi's origins and motivations. They also cover the latest in Gaza and frustration with the administration's refusal to change course after 100 days. Then they discuss the recent spike in gang violence in Ecuador, efforts to prevent Guatemala's new President from being sworn in, Taiwan's election results and North Korea announcing the end of efforts to reunify the Korean peninsula. Then Tommy speaks with Oona Hathaway, Director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges at Yale Law School, about South Africa's charges of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast.

Ali Velshi is joined by Ana Marie Cox, Political Columnist at The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen, President & CEO at the National Constitution Center, Akbar Ahmed, Senior Diplomatic Correspondent at HuffPost, Oona Hathaway, Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, Michael Shure, Political Journalist, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D) Washington, and Jesmyn Ward,  Author of ‘Salvage The Bones'

Leah, Melissa, and Kate recap the arguments in the hugely important administrative law case, SEC v. Jarkesy. Plus, they welcome Oona Hathaway and Sam Sankar-- two former clerks to the late Justice Sandra Day O'Connor-- to discuss her life and legacy.Read Kate's NYT op ed on Jarkesy: "This Quiet Blockbuster at the Supreme Court Could Affect All Americans"Read Oona Hathaway's NYT op ed on Justice O'Connor, "I Clerked for Justice O'Connor. She Was My Hero, but I Worry About Her Legacy."Read The 19th's reporting on how conservative groups are using the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling to shut down the Abundant Birth Project: "Backlash to affirmative action hits pioneering maternal health program for Black women" Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Ali Velshi is joined by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, California Rep. Ro Khanna, Yale international law professor Oona Hathaway, Tufts University international law professor Tom Dannenbaum, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, New York Times Investigative Reporter Susanne Craig, NBC's Ali Arouzi, NBC's Meagan Fitzgerald & NBC's Josh Lederman

The U.S.'s frequent use of force abroad erodes the international order's most fundamental principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway discusses the erosion of domestic constraints on presidential war powers and the increasing official resort to untenable self-defense doctrines to justify its military actions under international law. She also explains why chipping away at the prohibition on the use of force undermines international order, among other topics.Show NotesOona Hathaway bioOona A. Hathaway, “How the Expansion of ‘Self-Defense' Has Undermined Constraints on the Use of Force,” Just Security, September 18, 2023.Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro, The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017).Oona A. Hathaway et al., “Yemen: Is the U.S. Breaking the Law?” Harvard National Security Journal 10 (2019).Oona Hathaway, “National Security Lawyering in the Post-War Era: Can Law Constrain Power?” UCLA Law Review 68, rev. 2 (2021). Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Be sure to visit the Irregular Warfare Initiative website to see all of the new articles, podcast episodes, and other content the IWI team is producing! Irregular warfare, by its nature, includes activities that distinguish it from those traditionally conducted by conventional forces. But if congressional oversight is designed with the latter in mind, does this create gaps in oversight of irregular warfare? If so, what can Congress do to address the problem? Our guests on this episode are Dr. Oona Hathaway, director of the Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges, and Dr. Thomas Campbell, professor at Chapman University's Dale E. Fowler School of Law and a former member of Congress. They discuss the complexities of the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the unique considerations surrounding Title 10 and Title 50 activities, and the responsibilities of various committees in overseeing these actions. They conclude by sharing their insights on what this means for both practitioners and policymakers. Intro music: "Unsilenced" by Ketsa Outro music: "Launch" by Ketsa CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

On Monday, CNN aired a bombshell recording in the classified documents case against former president Donald Trump. The recording, released to CNN by the special counsel working on the Department of Justice's indictment of Trump, is reportedly of a 2021 meeting in Bedminster, New Jersey, where Trump discussed and seemingly showed secret documents to a group of onlookers. It was just the latest revelation in the government's case against the former president. Classified documents that belonged to former high-level government officials, including but not limited to former President Trump, former Vice President Pence, and President Biden, have been found in unauthorized locations in recent months. These cases vary greatly in volume and severity, but they point to a larger, systemic problem in the American government: the problem of overclassification. The latest data that the government released, in 2017, showed that around 50 million government documents are classified a year by over four million people, including outside government contractors, costing American taxpayers around $18 million, says Oona Hathaway, professor of law at Yale Law School, former special counsel to the Pentagon, and author of the Foreign Affairs article "Keeping the Wrong Secrets." In this conversation with Brooke, Hathaway talks about the incentives driving government employees to classify so many documents, the differences between the Trump and Biden document dramas, and why labeling so many things as "secret" makes these secrets less safe.  This is a segment originally aired on our January 27, 2023 show, Sorry, That's Classified.

Last week, former President Donald Trump was indicted by the U.S. government for allegedly retaining, mishandling, and concealing classified documents after he left office. Charged with 37 criminal counts—including many that stem from the Espionage Act—Trump appeared in a Miami federal court on Tuesday and pled not guilty to the charges brought against him. In this episode, legal experts Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School and Jamil Jaffer of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join to break down the legal and constitutional significance of the federal indictment. They also discuss potential outcomes of the prosecution, including effects on the upcoming 2024 presidential election; how these charges intersect with other charges being brought against President Trump in other courts including charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney in New York for allegedly falsifying business documents; how other countries around the world deal with heads of state who have been charged with breaking national and international laws; and how the decision to prosecute a president affects rule of law and the future of constitutional democracy.  Resources: United States v. Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta (indictment) Espionage Act: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) The Presidential Records Act (PRA) Oona Hathaway, “What Donald Trump and Reality Winner Have in Common” NY Times, June 11, 2023  Oona Hathaway on Classification of Government Documents, Washington Journal Interview, January 24, 2023 Jamil Jaffer, on “The Lead with Jake Tapper”, June 12th, 2023, Complete Transcript Scott Bomboy, “The question of president immunity back in the spotlight” National Constitution Center, July 24, 2017 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Following the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump, Geoff Bennett discussed the case with two experts in national security and handling classified documents, Oona Hathaway, a former special counsel at the Pentagon, and Jamil Jaffer, who served in the National Security Division at the Justice Department and as associate counsel to President George W. Bush. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Following the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump, Geoff Bennett discussed the case with two experts in national security and handling classified documents, Oona Hathaway, a former special counsel at the Pentagon, and Jamil Jaffer, who served in the National Security Division at the Justice Department and as associate counsel to President George W. Bush. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Federal prosecutors have a recording of former President Trump discussing a classified Pentagon document he kept after leaving office, multiple outlets report. In the 2021 recording, which the NewsHour has not independently verified, Trump says the document details a potential attack on Iran. Laura Barrón-López discussed the DOJ's investigation into the former president with Oona Hathaway. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Professor Oona Hathaway discusses her work on Ukraine, what's at stake in efforts to make international law more transparent, and the joy of co-authoring articles with students.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has tested the international legal order like never before. For many, the fact that a nuclear power and member of the U.N. Security Council would commit unveiled aggression against another state seemed like it might be the death knell of the international system as we know it. But last week, in the annual Breyer Lecture on International Law at the Brookings Institution, Oona Hathaway, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, argued that international law and institutions responded more robustly than many initially anticipated—and may yet emerge from the Ukraine conflict stronger than before.In this episode, we are bringing you the audio of Professor Hathaway's lecture, followed by a question and answer session with Constanze Stelzenmüller, the Director of the Center on the United States and Europe and the inaugural holder of the Fritz Stern Chair on Germany and trans-Atlantic Relations at the Brookings Institution. Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson then moderated a panel discussion that included Professor Hathaway, as well as Professor Rosa Brooks of Georgetown University Law Center; Karin Landgren, the Executive Director of Security Council Report; and Ambassador Martin Kimani, Kenya's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. More information on the Breyer Lecture is available on the Brookings Institution's website.A video recording of Professor Hathaway's lecture is available at https://www.brookings.edu/events/russias-aggression-against-ukraine-and-the-international-legal-order/.The text of Professor Hathaway's lecture has been published at https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/how-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-tested-the-international-legal-order/.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Former President Donald Trump, former vice president Mike Pence, and President Joe Biden don't have much in common. But all three got caught with classified documents that they took home. The incidents show a lot of things, including how cumbersome the classification system is. Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with someone who spends a lot explaining this challenging issue: Yale law professor Oona Hathaway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Former President Donald Trump, former vice president Mike Pence, and President Joe Biden don't have much in common. But all three got caught with classified documents that they took home. The incidents show a lot of things, including how cumbersome the classification system is. Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with someone who spends a lot explaining this challenging issue: Yale law professor Oona Hathaway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Almost one year after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Ali Velshi is live from Kyiv with the latest on the war and stories from the people he's met on the ground – from refugees to government officials, to ordinary Ukrainians coping with life under attack. Ali is joined live on the ground by Members of Parliament Kira Rudik and Yevheniia Kravchuk, as well as NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel and NBC News Correspondent Erin McLaughlin. He also speaks live with former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Oona Hathaway, professor of international law at Yale. And you'll hear from Inna Tokareva – a Ukrainian refugee Ali first met nearly a year ago on a train platform in Hungary as she was fleeting Russian violence.

If millions of Americans have access to classified documents, can we really call them secrets? On this week's On the Media, a former Pentagon official explains how America's bloated classification system came to be. Plus, a look at the stories we tell about Baby Boomers, and how our country might change after they're gone. 1. Oona Hathaway [@oonahathaway], professor at Yale Law School and former special counsel at the Pentagon, on the complicated nature of classified documents. Listen. 2. Noah Smith [@VildeHaya], contributing reporter for The Washington Post, on how a video game led to leaks of military documents. Listen.  3. Philip Bump [@pbump], national columnist at The Washington Post, on his latest book 'The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America.' Listen.  4. Brian Lehrer [@BrianLehrer], host of WNYC's The Brian Lehrer Show, on the news events that defined generations. Listen.  Music: Passing Time by John RenbournAtlantic City by Randy NewmanEye Surgery by Thomas NewmanYoung at Heart by Brad MehldauYour Mother Should Know by Brad MehldauWhen I'm 64 by Fred Hersch

Konflikt följer i ukrainska och internationella krigsbrottsutredares spår. Kommer ansvariga ryska politiker och befälhavare att ställas inför rätta? Medverkande: Zoja Vaschenko, mamma vars 32-årige son dödades av granatsplitter när han låg och sov, ett av cirka 70 000 fall som utreds som krigsbrott i Ukraina, Sviatoslav Ruban och Oleksandra Romantsova på Center for Civil Liberties som utreder krigsbrott i Ukraina, Ove Bring, folkrättsexpert och professor emeritus i internationell rätt, Olga och Arsenij som protesterar mot kriget i Stockholm, Karolina Wieslander, kammaråklagare som startat en sk "strukturell förundersökning" för kriget i Ukraina, Oona Hathaway, professor i internationell rätt på Yale-universitet i USA, Aleksandr Tjerkasov, rysk människorättsförsvarare, Pavel Filatjev, rysk desertör från kriget i Ukraina, Vladimir Osetjkin, rysk människorättsaktivist i exil i Frankrike, Tom Røseth, norsk underrättelseexpert, Brynjulf Risnes, norsk advokat för den påstådda Wagnersoldaten Andrej Medvedev som flytt till Norge mflI krigsbrottsutredarnas spår Radions korrespondent Lubna El-Shanti följer ukrainska krigsbrottsutredare på plats i Ukraina, runt 70 000 misstänkta fall av krigsförbrytelser har redan registrerats. Men vad kommer utredningarna att leda till? Kommer ryska politiker och befälhavare, och enskilda soldater kunna dömas för krigsförbrytelser, trots att Ryssland inte skrivit under Romstadgan, som ligger till grund för den Internationella krigsbrottstribunalen ICC?Experter reder ut hur regelverket ser ut och vad som är möjligt. Samtidigt argumenterar allt fler, både ukrainska företrädare, europeiska toppolitiker och akademiker, för att en särskild tribunal för kriget i Ukraina borde tillsättas, för att kunna ställa Vladimir Putin och andra ryska makthavare till svars för själva invasionen, det så kallade aggressionsbrottet eller brott mot freden.Ryska desertörer komplicerade vittnesmål Flera ryska soldater har deserterat från kriget i Ukraina och flytt till väst. Konflikt intervjuar Pavel Filatyev om vad han sett inifrån ryska armén. Han talar öppet om krigsbrott som begås i kriget, även om han säger att han själv och hans förband inte gjort sig skyldig till något sådant. Som den ryske desertören ser det är det i första hand inte de enskilda soldaterna som är skyldiga, utan politiker och befälhavare högre upp, som, tycker också han, både ställas inför rätta. Konflikt tittar också närmre på historien med den påstådde Wagnersoldaten som nyligen flydde till Norge. Flera experter har tvivlat på hans berättelse och varnar för att han kan vara en rysk dubbelagent. Men OM hans historia att han varit befälhavare för en grupp inom legostyrkan Wagner stämmer, då är han ju också en möjlig krigsförbrytare, hur hanteras det av de norska myndigheterna?Programledare: Fernando Arias fernando.arias@sr.seReportrar: Lubna El-Shanti och Lotten CollinTekniker: Stina FagerbergProducent: Anja Sahlberg anja.sahlberg@sr.se

Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, 2022 there have been numerous examples of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Russian soldiers. Many of these crimes are being investigated and prosecuted by local Ukrainian courts and the International Criminal Court.  But the crime of launching this illegal war in the first place is not, as of yet, under any court's jurisdiction. Oona Hathaway is seeking to change that. She is a professor at Yale Law School who has been advocating for the creation of a UN-backed special tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression committed by Russian leaders in Ukraine.  In recent weeks and month, this proposal is gaining some traction.  We kick off discussing and defining what we mean by the "crime of aggression" before the discussing the politics of creating a special internationally backed mechanism to prosecute specific Russian leaders, including Vladimir Putin, for the crime of aggression.     

New York Times national security correspondent Charlie Savage reported that the Biden administration has issued a still-classified policy on some types of counterterrorism operations, such as drone strikes and commando raids. That policy, the Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM), follows earlier guidance from the Obama and Trump administrations. For reactions to the PPM, Just Security has a written mini-series from our lineup of expert authors. On this week's episode, Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway and New America International Security Program Fellow Luke Hartig discuss the Biden plan and what it all means for U.S. counterterrorism efforts and forever war. Show Notes:Oona A. Hathaway (@oonahathaway)  Luke Hartig (@LukeHartig)Just Security mini-series on President Biden's Presidential Policy Memo (PPM)0:23 Charlie Savage's NYT article on the PPM2:20 President Obama's Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG)3:12 President Trump's Principles, Standards, and Procedures (PSP) 16:33  New York Times coverage of Aug. 29, 2021 Kabul drone strike that killed 10 civilians 17:40 New York Times coverage of March 18, 2019 Baghuz drone strike that killed about 70 civilians 18:20 Azmat Khan's Pulitzer-winning reporting on U.S. drone strikes in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

This episode is the third in a series of podcasts analysing accountability in the current Ukrainian conflict. In this third episode, we are speaking with Dr Carrie McDougall, from the University of Melbourne, who has been heavily involved in the proposal for the establishment of a Special International Tribunal to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of crimes of aggression committed on the territory of Ukraine. In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, unprecedented support has been lent to efforts to ensure that those responsible for serious international crimes being committed in Ukraine are held to account. But what prospect is there for the prime mover, President Putin, being prosecuted?Dr Carrie McDougall, formerly a legal specialist at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Legal Adviser at Australia's Mission to the United Nations, is currently researching and teaching international law at the University of Melbourne. She is an expert on the use of force and international criminal law, in particular the crime of aggression, having been heavily involved in the negotiation of the aggression amendments to the Rome Statute and having authored several works on the crime, including the leading monograph on the subject, The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.Additional Resources:    General Crime of Aggression Publications: Carrie McDougall, The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2nd ed, CUP, 2021).Claus Kress & Stefan Barriga (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (CUP, 2016). Carrie McDougall, ‘The Crime of Aggression' in Pedro Caeiro, Sabine Gless and Valsamis Mitsilegas (eds), The Elgar Encyclopedia of Crime and Criminal Justice.     Special International Tribunal video recordings and key blog posts: Chatham House: A Criminal Tribunal for Aggression in Ukraine .  Chatham House: Aggression Against Ukraine: Holding Russia Accountable. Edgehill Int Law: Do We Need a Special Tribunal for Aggression for Ukraine?   Carrie McDougall, ‘Why Creating A Special Tribunal for Aggression Against Ukraine is the Best Available Option: A Reply to Kevin Jon Heller and Other Critics', Opinio Juris. Kevin Jon Heller, ‘The Best Option: An Extraordinary Ukrainian Chamber for Aggression', Opinio Juris. Alexander Komarov and Oona Hathaway, ‘Ukraine's Constitutional Constraints: How to Achieve Accountability for the Crime of Aggression', Just Security.

Warning: This episode contains content that some listeners may find upsettingNo matter the war being fought, it's a sad fact that war crimes take place all around the world - we need only look to Russia's offensive war in Ukraine to see how civilians can be illegally targeted in an indiscriminate and disproportionate fashion.With contemporary events in mind, we decided to take a look at the long history of war crimes and how perpetrators have been held to account over the decades.To help with this James is joined once again by Oona Hathaway, Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and member of the Advisory Committee on International Law at the US Department of State since 2005.For more Warfare content, subscribe to our Warfare Wednesday newsletter here.If you'd like to learn even more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - enter promo code WARFARE for two weeks free + 50% off your first three months' subscription. To download, go to Android or Apple store. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As the U.N. General Assembly comes to a close, NPR's Leila Fadel asks Yale law professor Oona Hathaway how nations can unite in responding to Russia for its war against Ukraine.

Finalist #8 in the Book Review Contest https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-internationalists         [This is one of the finalists in the 2022 book review contest. It's not by me - it's by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done, to prevent their identity from influencing your decisions. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked - SA] In The Internationalists, Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro (H&S from now on) work to raise the profile of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, at the time the most-ratified treaty in history, in which 63 nations (unlike today, this was most of the world - 51 became founding members of the United Nations) came together to declare war illegal. Here is the Pact, in full. Signatories shall renounce war as a national policy and; Signatories shall settle disputes by peaceful means

Covert action has supported our nation's security goals for decades — from fighting the Cold War to killing Osama Bin Laden. But it's also part of a long American history of justifying the means to an end, one that's led to unethical and illegal actions across the world. You could spend hours reading about past covert affairs without understanding how the executive branch manages missions or the classified intel around them — and, it's not just you. Congress is tasked with overseeing those efforts, and even it has a hard time breaking through the layers of bureaucracy meant to keep our secrets safe. But when the war drum starts beating, where does it leave lawmakers tasked with checking and balancing? Two skeletons in the CIA's closet might help give us some answers. GUESTS: Lana Ponting, MKULTRA Survivor; Julie Tanny, MKULTRA Survivor; Oona Hathaway, Yale University; Sam Worthington, InterAction ADDITIONAL READING: Secrecy's End, Oona Hathaway, Minnesota Law Review Covert Action, Congressional Inaction, Stephen R. Weissman, Foreign Affairs Brainwashed: The echoes of MKULTRA, Canadian Broadcasting Association In Vaccines We Trust? The Effect of The CIA's Vaccine Ruse on Immunization In Pakistan, Monica Martinez-​Bravo and Andreas Stegmann, Journal of the European Economic Association

Evidence of Russian war crimes litters the landscape of Ukraine. But it's a long trudge from the battlefields to the courtroom. Anne McElvoy asks Oona Hathaway, an expert on law and warfare and a professor at Yale University, whether the perpetrators will be held accountable. Could Vladimir Putin and others be prosecuted by a Nuremberg-style tribunal? Plus, should America join the International Criminal Court?Please subscribe to The Economist for full access to print, digital and audio editions:www.economist.com/podcastoffer See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Evidence of Russian war crimes litters the landscape of Ukraine. But it's a long trudge from the battlefields to the courtroom. Anne McElvoy asks Oona Hathaway, an expert on law and warfare and a professor at Yale University, whether the perpetrators will be held accountable. Could Vladimir Putin and others be prosecuted by a Nuremberg-style tribunal? Plus, should America join the International Criminal Court?Please subscribe to The Economist for full access to print, digital and audio editions:www.economist.com/podcastoffer See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Ali Velshi, reporting live from the Nyugati rail station in Budapest, Hungary, is joined by NBC's Molly Hunter and Gabe Gutierrez in Lviv, Ukraine, the Kyiv Independent's Oleksiy Sorokin, Ukrainian members of parliament Lisa Yasko and Sviatoslav Yurash, retired U.S. Army Major and chair of Urban Warfare Studies for the Madison Policy Forum John Spencer, NYU history professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Yale Law School's Oona Hathaway, founding director of Columbia's Center for Disaster Preparedness Dr. Irwin Redlener, and UNICEF's Joe English. 

Any federal employee who's come near classified or secret information know what happens if they try to publish something or give a speech. The federal government has at least 17 pre-publication review boards with the authority to say no. The whole apparatus has led to what my next guest calls several pathologies. Yale University Law Professor Oona Hathaway.

This week we have an emergency podcast episode on the war in Ukraine. We're joined by our two colleagues and leading international law scholars – Oona Hathaway, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, and Scott Shapiro, the Chalres F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Yale Law School. In this conversation, which took place Sunday, February 27 even as a fluid situation evolved, we focus on the legal theory implications of the war. We get into Oona and Scott's book The Internationalists and whether Putin's invasion constitutes a challenge to the global legal order described in their book. In addition, even if in the global order a norm exists against aggression and conquest, do some countries seem to be exempt from operating under these norms? We next compare the American domestic criminal law system to the international legal system and ask why internationally we tolerate a system where one actor can veto attempts to make it operate within the system. A debate emerges if Russia is actually avoiding the norms of the legal system right now given the costs it is facing through the global response to their invasion. In the conversation, we discuss the efficacy of “outcasting” and whether current American and European sanctions can be effective. After, we touch on Putin's case for war and how his justification compares to other historic “war manifestos.” There's a lot to discuss here and we're lucky to have two of the experts in the field here to break it down. Referenced Readings The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World, Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro “Outcasting: Enforcement in Domestic and International Law,” Oona A. Hathaway & Scott J. Shapiro. “Putin Can't Destroy the International Order by Himself,” Oona A. Hathaway & Scott J. Shapiro “War Manifestos,” Oona A. Hathaway, Scott J. Shapiro, et al. “Putin's Case for War, Annotated,” Max Fisher. “The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War,” Nicholas Mulder. The Concept of the Political, Carl Schmitt. “Forms of Modern Imperialism in International Law,” Carl Schmitt.

As observers in Washington look back at the Biden administration's first year and prepare for its forthcoming national security and defense strategies, the Net Assessment crew debates the virtues of muddling through. Does the Biden team have a grand plan? Does it need one? And are errors of omission worse than those of commission? Chris, Melanie, and Zack debate recent articles on muddling through by Josh Rovner, Richard Fontaine, and Anne-Marie Slaughter. Chris gives an attaboy to Tom Brady, since he hasn't won enough already. Melanie issues both a grievance and an attaboy to Newt Gingrich. And Zack hails the wonders of easily available satellite imagery. Links:  Joshua Rovner, “How Long can Biden Muddle Through on China?” War on the Rocks, Jan. 26, 2022, https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/how-long-can-biden-muddle-through-on-china/.  Richard Fontaine, “The Case Against Foreign Policy Solutionism,” Foreign Affairs, Feb. 8, 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-02-08/case-against-foreign-policy-solutionism.  Richard Fontaine, “Washington's Missing China Strategy,” Foreign Affairs, Jan. 14, 2022, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2022-01-14/washingtons-missing-china-strategy.  Anne-Marie Slaughter, “It's Time to Get Honest About the Biden Doctrine,” New York Times, Nov. 12, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/opinion/biden-foreign-policy.html.  Amy B. Zegart, Spies, Lies, and Algorithms (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022), https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691147130/spies-lies-and-algorithms. Stacie L. Pettyjohn, "Spiking the Problem: Developing a Resilient Posture in the Indo-Pacific with Passive Defenses," War on the Rocks, Jan. 10, 2022.   Dustin Walker, “The Pentagon is in Desperate Need of an Intervention from the Top,” War on the Rocks, Jan. 27, 2022.  Joe DiPaolo, " Newt Gingrich Says January 6 Committee Members 'Face a Real Risk of Jail' if Republicans Win the House," Mediaite, Jan. 23, 2022.  Liz Harrington, Tweet, Jan. 30, 2022.  Newt Gingrich, Tweet, Jan. 26, 2022.  The Hill, Tweet, Jan. 26, 2022.  Stephen Breyer, "Why Regulation Rarely Achieves the Goals It Is Designed to Serve," PBS Commanding Heights (no date). Jeff Darlington and Adam Schefter, “Tom Brady retiring after 22 seasons, seven Super Bowl wins with New England Patriots, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, sources say,” ESPN, Jan. 29, 2022, https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33173652/tom-brady-retiring-22-seasons-seven-super-bowl-wins-new-england-patriots-tampa-bay-buccaneers-sources-say.  Dustin Volz, “Vast Troves of Classified Info Undermine National Security, Spy Chief Says,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/vast-troves-of-classified-info-undermine-national-security-spy-chief-says-11643286602.  Oona Hathaway, “Keeping the Wrong Secrets: How Washington Misses the Real Security Threat,” Foreign Affairs (January-February 2022), https://reader.foreignaffairs.com/2021/12/14/keeping-the-wrong-secrets/content.html.  Patrick G. Eddington and Christopher A. Preble, “Bad Idea: Overclassification,” Defense360, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Dec. 6, 2019, https://defense360.csis.org/bad-idea-overclassification/.  Mathew Burrows and Evan Cooper, “Engagement Reframed #1: Vaccinate the world,” New American Engagement Initiative, Feb. 1, 2022, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/engagement-reframed/vaccinate-the-world/.

What if we declared an end to the costly system of how we classify national security information in the United States? Oona Hathaway, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, poses this question in her article “Secrecy's End.” Stephanie Pell talked with Oona about some of our classification system's most corrosive effects on our democratic system of governance and some proposals she has for reforming it. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Episode 33: Non-Binding Agreements and International Law with Oona Hathaway by American Society of International Law

Experts discuss the future of war powers after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Panelists include Tess Bridgeman, co-editor-in-chief of Just Security; Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway; and Rutgers Law School professor Adil Haque. UVA Law professor Kristen Eichensehr, director of the National Security Law Center, moderated the event. This event was sponsored by the National Security Law Center; Law, Innovation, Security & Technology; and the National Security Law Forum. (University of Virginia School of Law, Nov. 15, 2021)

It has now been 20 years since September 11th, 2001. So we're bringing you a Peabody Award-winning story from our archives about one sentence, written in the hours after the attacks, that has led to the longest war in U.S. history. We examine how just 60 words of legal language have blurred the line between war and peace. In the hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a lawyer sat down in front of a computer and started writing a legal justification for taking action against those responsible. The language that he drafted and that President George W. Bush signed into law - called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) -  has at its heart one single sentence, 60 words long. Over the last decade, those 60 words have become the legal foundation for the "war on terror." In this collaboration with BuzzFeed, reporter Gregory Johnsen tells us the story of how this has come to be one of the most important, confusing, troubling sentences of the last two decades. We go into the meetings that took place in the chaotic days just after 9/11, speak with Congresswoman Barbara Lee and former Congressman Ron Dellums about the vote on the AUMF. We hear from former White House and State Department lawyers John Bellinger & Harold Koh. We learn how this legal language unleashed Guantanamo, Navy Seal raids and drone strikes. And we speak with journalist Daniel Klaidman, legal expert Benjamin Wittes and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine about how these words came to be interpreted, and what they mean for the future of war and peace. Finally, we check back in with Congresswoman Lee, and talk to Yale law professor and national security expert Oona Hathaway, about how to move on from the original sixty words. Original episode produced by Matt Kielty and Kelsey Padgett with original music by Dylan Keefe. Update reported and produced by Sarah Qari and Soren Wheeler. Special thanks to Brian Finucane. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate. 

This week a bipartisan group of US senators introduced a bill to reform the 48-year-old War Powers Act—the law intended to check a president's ability to declare war. Yale Law School's Oona Hathaway joins Deep Dish to explain why it's so important for Congress to revive its war powers and offer a potential solution. 

Scott J. Shapiro, Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Yale Law School, joins us to talk about well, everything, including planning theory of law, outcasting and more. Click here for Scott Shapiro's podcast 'Jurisprudence'. Publications referred to in the episode: Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro, The Internationalists: How A Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2017). Oona Hathaway and Scott J Shapiro, ‘Outcasting: Enforcement in Domestic and International Law', Yale Law Journal 121 (2011): 252–349. Scott J. Shapiro, Legality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011). Michael Bratman, Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Wherein we are joined by Yale law professor Oona Hathaway to talk about her book with Scott Shapiro, The Internationalists—and whatever else comes up. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this week's episode, Oona Hathaway, professor of law at Yale Law School, and Dr. Craig Jones, lecturer in political geography at Newcastle University, discuss their views on law's role in war and national security. Professor Hathaway's recent article, National Security Lawyering in the Post-War Era: Can Law Constrain Power?, argues that our current system lacks external constraints on executive branch national security lawyers and suggests division of powers and increased accountability could help remedy these issues. In The War Lawyers: The United States, Israel, and Juridicial Warfare, Dr. Jones focuses more specifically on how military operations have come to rely on lawyers and discusses the consequences of a system where law and war are co-constitutive. The professors discuss where they find common ground and where they diverge, and answer the question of whether there is too much or too little law in war.

Few decisions a government can make are more consequential than deciding when the use of force is warranted. In the US a debate has raged for decades about how much latitude a president should have in making such decisions and what role Congress should play. Legal contortionism has turned congressional authorizations for the use of force in one circumstance into blank permissions slips still cited by president decades later. This week, the Congress has begun to reconsider these profoundly important issues and we are joined by experts Steve Pomper, formerly of the Obama NSC, and Oona Hathaway, professor at Yale Law School, as well as regular co-host Ryan Goodman, co-editor of Just Security and professor at NYU Law School for a discussion on what changes are needed and which are possible. Don't miss it.Each week, we’re bringing you a new episode of one of our favorite podcasts, Deep State Radio.Deep State Radio, hosted by David Rothkopf, produces new episodes 2-3 times per week and brings together top experts, policymakers, and journalists from the national security, foreign policy, and political communities. You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.If you become a member of the DSR Network, you’ll receive benefits such as ad-free listening via private feed, discounts to virtual events and Deep State Radio Swag, and access to the member-only Slack community. This is one of the most closely followed podcasts among the people influencing the most important decisions in Washington and worldwide today. You can learn more by visiting thedsrnetwork.com. Listeners to Words Matter will receive 25% off of the regular membership price. Use code wordsmatter at checkout.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/words-matter. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Few decisions a government can make are more consequential than deciding when the use of force is warranted. In the US a debate has raged for decades about how much latitude a president should have in making such decisions and what role Congress should play. Legal contortionism has turned congressional authorizations for the use of force in one circumstance into blank permissions slips still cited by president decades later. This week, the Congress has begun to reconsider these profoundly important issues and we are joined by experts Steve Pomper, formerly of the Obama NSC, and Oona Hathaway, professor at Yale Law School, as well as regular co-host Ryan Goodman, co-editor of Just Security and professor at NYU Law School for a discussion on what changes are needed and which are possible. Don't miss it.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Few decisions a government can make are more consequential than deciding when the use of force is warranted. In the US a debate has raged for decades about how much latitude a president should have in making such decisions and what role Congress should play. Legal contortionism has turned congressional authorizations for the use of force in one circumstance into blank permissions slips still cited by president decades later. This week, the Congress has begun to reconsider these profoundly important issues and we are joined by experts Steve Pomper, formerly of the Obama NSC, and Oona Hathaway, professor at Yale Law School, as well as regular co-host Ryan Goodman, co-editor of Just Security and professor at NYU Law School for a discussion on what changes are needed and which are possible. Don't miss it.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A conversation with Prof. Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School on the theory and practice of the domestic law constraints on the use of force, including the different ways in which the War Powers Resolution in the U.S. could and should be amended, the relationship between war powers and international law, and how Congress could reassert its powers over decisions to engage in armed conflict. In addition, we talk about how crises such as the Coronavirus pandemic and climate change, should cause us to re-think the scope and character of national security priorities and policy.

I ask the philosopher Scott Shapiro five questions about himself. Scott Shapiro is the Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Yale Law School. His areas of interest include jurisprudence, international law, constitutional law, criminal law and cybersecurity; and he is the author of "Legality" (2011) and, with Oona Hathaway, of "The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World" (2017).

Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School, discusses the War Powers Resolution and whether the military strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, was constitutional. She speaks to host June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

In this episode, two war powers experts explain and grapple with the legal and constitutional ramifications of the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian military leader General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last week. Did the president have the authority under the Constitution – as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces – and under domestic and international law to unilaterally carry out the airstrike? Can it be justified as an act of self-defense, a response to an “imminent threat”, or anything less than an act of war? Or, does the law require Congress, not the president, to authorize such strikes? John Bellinger, former State Department Legal Adviser under Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale Law and Adviser to the State Department, answer those questions and more in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School, discusses the War Powers Resolution and whether the military strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, was constitutional. She speaks to host June Grasso.

In this episode, two war powers experts explain and grapple with the legal and constitutional ramifications of the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian military leader General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last week. Did the president have the authority under the Constitution – as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces – and under domestic and international law to unilaterally carry out the airstrike? Can it be justified as an act of self-defense, a response to an “imminent threat”, or anything less than an act of war? Or, does the law require Congress, not the president, to authorize such strikes? John Bellinger, former State Department Legal Adviser under Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale Law and Adviser to the State Department, answer those questions and more in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Ryan sat down for a conversation Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico to talk about an issue that matters a lot to them and should matter a lot to you: war powers. In her contribution to a new roundtable on war powers, Oona Hathaway has a perfect lede: “The U.S. Congress has not approved a use of force since 2002. And yet the United States certainly has not been at peace in the years since.” Military operations all across the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa are ongoing and expanding. As Hathaway writes elegantly they are all “grounded in capacious readings of Congress’ 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force.” Edward Corwin described the way foreign relations powers are divvied up in the constitution as an “invitation to struggle”. But — as the years since these aging authorizations have demonstrated — it’s not a fair fight, is it? Don’t miss this episode, which pairs well with the new war powers roundtable in the Texas National Security Review. 

The US Congress has not approved a use of force since 2002, when it voted to invade Iraq. "Too many members of Congress are all too happy to abdicate their constitutional responsibility and allow the president to go it alone," explains Oona Hathaway, professor of International Law at Yale Law School. Hathaway joins Deep Dish to lay out a step-by-step plan for Congress to revive its war powers.

For the 2019 Tanner Lectures at UC Berkeley, Arthur Ripstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Toronto, argues that the very thing that makes war wrongful — the fact which side prevails does not depend on who is in the right — also provides the moral standard for evaluating the conduct of war, both the grounds for going to war and the ways in which wars are fought.In the last of three days of lectures and discussions, which took place on April 9-11, commentators Chris Kutz, a law professor at UC Berkeley who focuses on moral, political and legal philosophy; Oona Hathaway, a professor law at Yale Law School; and Jeff McMahan, a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Oxford, provide commentary on Ripstein’s previous two lectures.“What’s puzzling is that Arthur seems to want to link up this principle to the idea of a future peace and internally to the principle of action by the aggressor,” said Kutz in his commentary. “The peace imagined by the aggressor nation isn’t the peace of a just defender, it’s a peace based upon forcible change. Now, Arthur seemed to suggest that there’s no coherent alternative to the just defender’s limited aims in war, that any other conception of war makes war a matter of what he called extermination. Even for an aggressor’s state, that seems to me an exaggerated characterization.”The Tanner Lectures on Human Values is presented annually at nine universities: UC Berkeley, Harvard, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford, Utah, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. This series was founded in 1978 by the American scholar, industrialist and philanthropist, Obert Clark Tanner, who was also a member of the faculty of philosophy at the University of Utah. He was also an Honorary Fellow of the British Academy. Tanner’s goal, in establishing the lectures through the Tanner philanthropies, was to promote the search for a better understanding of human behavior and human values. He hoped that the lectures would advance scholarly and scientific learning in the area of human values, and contribute to the intellectual and moral life of humankind.Learn more about the 2019 Tanner Lectures.Listen and read a transcript of this talk on Berkeley News. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

For the 2019 Tanner Lectures at UC Berkeley, Arthur Ripstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Toronto, argues that the very thing that makes war wrongful — the fact which side prevails does not depend on who is in the right — also provides the moral standard for evaluating the conduct of war, both the grounds for going to war and the ways in which wars are fought.In the second of three days of lectures and discussions, which took place on April 9-11, Ripstein talks about why it's wrong to target civilians and makes a distinction between those who are and are not a part of war. Following the lecture, Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School, and Jeff McMahan, a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Oxford, provide commentary.The Tanner Lectures on Human Values is presented annually at nine universities: UC Berkeley, Harvard, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford, Utah, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. This series was founded in 1978 by the American scholar, industrialist and philanthropist, Obert Clark Tanner, who was also a member of the faculty of philosophy at the University of Utah. He was also an Honorary Fellow of the British Academy. Tanner’s goal, in establishing the lectures through the Tanner philanthropies, was to promote the search for a better understanding of human behavior and human values. He hoped that the lectures would advance scholarly and scientific learning in the area of human values, and contribute to the intellectual and moral life of humankind.Listen and read the transcript on Berkeley News.Learn more about the 2019 Tanner Lectures.Stay tuned for the third installment of the 2019 Tanner Lectures on Berkeley Talks. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Is the post-World War II international order being dismantled? Are we witnessing an unprecedented assault on the international order, or are current events just part of a natural ebb and flow of history? In the inaugural episode, we sat down with top experts in international law for their assessments on where we stand today, how we got here, and the future of the international order. In Part I, guests Harold Koh, Oona Hathaway, and Dapo Akande give their assessments on the current historical moment, touching on Brexit, the role of China in the international order, the rise of populism, and hopes for the future. Guests: Harold Koh, Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and former Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State; Oona Hathaway, Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and former Special Counsel to the General Counsel for National Security Law at the U.S. Department of Defense; and Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law and the University of Oxford.

The Syria strike was likely highly ineffective due to the fact that it was limited in impact, came without a long-term strategy or much likelihood of follow-up actions to end the use of chemical weapons or the wholesale slaughter of Syrians. But wait, it gets worse: It was also an illegal strike by almost every measure. But hey, that's not a bug it's a feature of the Trump approach to the presidency and life. He's one of those people who sees the law as something only little people must deal with. We discuss what that means for him, U.S. foreign policy, and this teetering presidency with Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, Susan Hennessey of Lawfare, Kim Ghattas of the Carnegie Endowment and our own Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School.Tune in!Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Syria strike was likely highly ineffective due to the fact that it was limited in impact, came without a long-term strategy or much likelihood of follow-up actions to end the use of chemical weapons or the wholesale slaughter of Syrians. But wait, it gets worse: It was also an illegal strike by almost every measure. But hey, that's not a bug it's a feature of the Trump approach to the presidency and life. He's one of those people who sees the law as something only little people must deal with. We discuss what that means for him, U.S. foreign policy, and this teetering presidency with Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, Susan Hennessey of Lawfare, Kim Ghattas of the Carnegie Endowment and our own Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School.Tune in! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Scott Shapiro joins us to discuss how law relates to, well, everything. His article with David Plunkett argues that theorizing about the nature of law is a project to understand how talking and thinking about law fit into reality. But first, we talk with him about Twitter, writing, collaboration, Joe's innermost psyche, and more. This show’s links: Scott Shapiro’s faculty profile (https://law.yale.edu/scott-j-shapiro) and academic writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=234075) Scott Shapiro, Legality (https://www.amazon.com/Legality-Scott-J-Shapiro/dp/0674725786) Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, The Internationalists (https://www.amazon.com/Internationalists-Radical-Outlaw-Remade-World/dp/1501109863/) Oral Argument 112: Quasi-Narrative (http://oralargument.org/112) (guest Simon Stern) Scott Shapiro and David Plunkett, Law, Morality and Everything Else: General Jurisprudence as a Branch of Meta-Normative Inquiry (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2964089) Special Guest: Scott Shapiro.

Guests Oona Hathaway Professor @YaleLawSch, Director @YaleLawGLC, Editor @just_security, fmr Special Counsel @DeptofDefense, co-author of The Internationalists Oona A. Hathaway - Yale Law School Oona Hathaway (@oonahathaway) on Twitter Scott Shapiro Prof @YaleLawSch + Philosophy @Yale. Visiting Quain Prof @UCLLaws. Editor, Legal Theory and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. #Internationalists THE INTERNATIONALISTS Scott Shapiro (@scottjshapiro) on Twitter Given how Xi today struts on the world stage with ambitions to use today's "historic opportunity" to reshape the international order, its useful to look back in history to the last time the world faced a revolution in legal norms. Yale Law Professors Scott Shapiro and Oona Hathaway recently published The Internationalists, an intellectual history of how international legal norms have evolved since the days of Grotius. In particular, they focus on the movement to outlaw war peaking in the early 20th century with the Kellogg Briand Pact fundamentally reframed interstate relations and created many aspects of the modern international system China is navigating today. This discussion ranges from how Japan adopted to the western legal reality in the late 19th and early 20th century, to origins of sanctions, the South China Sea and even wars started by claims of wife-stealing.

Guests Oona Hathaway Professor @YaleLawSch, Director @YaleLawGLC, Editor @just_security, fmr Special Counsel @DeptofDefense, co-author of The Internationalists Oona A. Hathaway - Yale Law School Oona Hathaway (@oonahathaway) on Twitter Scott Shapiro Prof @YaleLawSch + Philosophy @Yale. Visiting Quain Prof @UCLLaws. Editor, Legal Theory and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. #Internationalists THE INTERNATIONALISTS Scott Shapiro (@scottjshapiro) on Twitter Given how Xi today struts on the world stage with ambitions to use today's "historic opportunity" to reshape the international order, its useful to look back in history to the last time the world faced a revolution in legal norms. Yale Law Professors Scott Shapiro and Oona Hathaway recently published The Internationalists, an intellectual history of how international legal norms have evolved since the days of Grotius. In particular, they focus on the movement to outlaw war peaking in the early 20th century with the Kellogg Briand Pact fundamentally reframed interstate relations and created many aspects of the modern international system China is navigating today. This discussion ranges from how Japan adopted to the western legal reality in the late 19th and early 20th century, to origins of sanctions, the South China Sea and even wars started by claims of wife-stealing. Get bonus content on Patreon See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

War became illegal in 1928 with the Paris Peace Pact that created a new world order, according to the lawyer and academic Oona Hathaway. She tells Andrew Marr how this pivotal moment launched a new international system in which sanctions replaced gunboat diplomacy. Although inter-state wars have fallen since World War Two, intra-state conflicts have risen: Elisabeth Kendall explains the dire situation of one of the Arab's poorest countries, Yemen. The Norwegian ambassador to the UK Mona Juul talks about the art of international diplomacy. She played a key role in the secret talks which led to the Oslo Accords in the 1990s - the first ever agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. And Phillip Collins looks at the speeches that have shaped the world and inspired generations, especially at moments of war and conflict. Producer: Katy Hickman.

Ryan Evans had the pleasure to sit down with Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, authors of the new book The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. Remember that treaty you learned about in school that outlawed war after World War I - the Kellogg-Briand Pact? That's right, the one you laughed at.  Well Oona and Scott -- both of Yale Law School -- make a pretty strong argument that it actually worked far better than we all thought. And, in doing so, they make a good case that international relations scholars should take the power of the law more seriously. 

The Kellogg-Briand Pact is often remembered as a failure; signed in 1928 to outlaw war, it was followed in just over a decade by one of the deadliest conflicts in history. But Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro see the Pact differently. In their new book, "The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World," they argue that though it did not successfully end all war, the Pact changed the way states resolve disputes, reduced the likelihood of conquest, and set of a chain of events that led to the modern world order. On September 11, they sat down with Jack Goldsmith at the Hoover Book Soiree to discuss their book and its implications.

Recorded on September 11, 2017 Jack Goldsmith, working group co-chair, interviewed authors Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, examining the role that war has played in international relations from the sixteenth century to the present -- a role profoundly transformed by the "Internationalists," who created the rules and institutions that gave us seven decades of unprecedented peace between states. Hathaway and Shapiro argue that as the world stands on the brink of rejecting the global legal order the Internationalists built, this is a moment to understand what is at risk.

The Hoover Institution hosted "The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World" on Monday, September 11, 2017 from 5:00pm - 7:00pm EST. Jack Goldsmith, working group co-chair, interviewed authors Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, examining the role that war has played in international relations from the sixteenth century to the present -- a role profoundly transformed by the "Internationalists," who created the rules and institutions that gave us seven decades of unprecedented peace between states. Hathaway and Shapiro argue that as the world stands on the brink of rejecting the global legal order the Internationalists built, this is a moment to understand what is at risk. (Playing time: 46:08)

Scott Shapiro and Oona Hathaway have just published The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. Scott J. Shapiro is the Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Yale Law School, where he is the Director of the Center for Law and Philosophy. He is also the Visiting Quain Professor of Jurisprudence at University College, London. He earned his BA and PhD degrees in philosophy from Columbia University and a JD from Yale Law School, where he was senior editor of The Yale Law Journal. He is the author of Legality and editor of The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and the Philosophy of Law. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. Oona A. Hathaway is the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and the Director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges. She has published essays and opinion pieces in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and Foreign Policy. She served as the Special Counsel to the General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense in 2014-2015, for which she was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence. She is a member of the Advisory Committee on International Law for the Legal Adviser of the US Department of State and an active member of the US Supreme Court bar. She earned her BA from Harvard College and a JD from Yale Law School, where she was Editor-in-Chief of The Yale Law Journal. She lives in New Haven, Connecticut. David Swanson's review of The Internationalists is here: http://davidswanson.org/how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928

Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School and Michael Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas School of Law debate whether foreign laws or international agreements have a role in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School and Michael Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas School of Law debate whether foreign laws or international agreements have a role in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

"Our Foreign Affairs Constitution: The President, Congress, and the Making of International Law." Oona A. Hathaway, Yale Professor of International Law gives the Timbers '37 Lecture addressing a crisis of accountability and legitimacy in international lawmaking. Presented by The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences. Co-sponsored by the Dartmouth Legal Studies Faculty Group and the Dartmouth Lawyers Association.