Podcasts about un charter

Secretary-General warns Security Council UN Charter is facing ‘profound strain'Air travel safe for now in face of Ebola emergency says UN aviation agencyUN alarmed by escalating attacks and destruction in Ukraine

China assumes presidency of the UN Security Council in May. Permanent Representative Fu Cong says the priorities are revitalizing the role of the UN, promoting the development of African countries, and advancing the political settlement of the Middle East issue.

As the United Nations marks its 80th anniversary, General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock highlights a striking gap in its leadership: the continued absence of a woman Secretary-General.For an institution founded on principles of equality, human rights, and inclusion, this omission is becoming harder to defend. Ms. Baerbock argues that the issue is not merely symbolic, but central to the UN's mission, with women's rights inseparable from peace, security, and sustainable development.In an interview with UN News's Anshu Sharma during her official visit to India, Ms. Baerbock also reflected on the broader challenges facing multilateralism, the need for reform, and the importance of standing together to uphold the values of the UN Charter.

April 24, 2026On April 25, 1945, delegates from 50 nations met to establish the United Nations, In the 1941 Atlantic Charter, Roosevelt and Churchill had laid out principles for an international system to prevent future world wars, The Declaration by United Nations formalized the alliance that would stand against fascist Axis powers, Representatives from the US, UK, Soviet Union, and China drafted the Dumbarton Oaks Proposal for the UN in 1944, As WWII came to an end, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met in Yalta and agreed to convene a conference of the nations of the UN, The UN Charter was adopted unanimously, The Charter declared the signers' commitment to live in peace with each other and to work for the advancement of all peoples. Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

Episode Topic: Sustainable Hope Marking the 80th anniversary of the UN Charter, this panel explores the shift from an “ideology of destruction” to decentralized green infrastructure. Discover how environmental law and energy innovation are securing Ukraine's sovereignty and the future of international accountability.Featured Speakers:Diane Desierto, University of Notre DameCarl Bruch, Environmental Law InstituteOlga Degtiareva, Odesa National University of EconomicsAlbina Dioba, Copenhagen Business SchoolKristina Hook '20 Ph.D., Kennesaw State UniversityNatalia Slobodian, Canterbury Christ Church University Read this episode's recap over on the University of Notre Dame's open online learning community platform, ThinkND: https://go.nd.edu/572290.This podcast is a part of the ThinkND Series titled Revolutions of Hope. Thanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career.Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu.Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.

“These technologies are morally agnostic. They could be the best things ever and the worst things ever, and the determinant is us.” — Jamie Metzl Two summers ago, Jamie Metzl gave a talk on AI and spirituality at the Chautauqua Institution in Upstate New York. That same spot where Salman Rushdie was stabbed on stage a couple of years earlier. Rather than an assassination attempt, Metzl's talk triggered The AI Ten Commandments: A New Moral Code for Humanity — a book co-authored with GPT-5. Metzl humbly claims that AI enabled him to incorporate other non-Christian traditions in a new moral code for humanity. Some might think, however, that this type of ChatGPT-5 co-production reflects a new moral crisis for humanity. The victory of AI slop. Fast information. High on intellectual calories, low on everything else. Five Takeaways •       Co-Authoring with GPT-5: Five to six thousand back-and-forth exchanges over the course of writing the book. Metzl is a novelist who cares deeply about language and the provenance of ideas — he is explicit that this is not the kind of AI fraud that got Mia Ballard's book pulled from Hachette. The analogy he reaches for: Refik Anadol at MoMA, whose installation uses the museum's entire digital collection not to reproduce the images but to create something new from them. The collaboration with AI isn't about outsourcing the thinking. It's about gaining a vantage point that no individual human could have — the same way we collaborate with machines in biology to see the genome, which no one could simply observe by looking at another person. •       Moses's Problem: The biblical 10 commandments, examined closely, don't hold up. The first two are preamble. “Thou shalt not kill” — Moses received it on Sinai and then came down and murdered 3,000 people at God's instruction. The commandments were written by people with no awareness of the moral traditions of the Americas, Asia, or Africa. Metzl's counterproposal uses AI to look at all of human recorded history simultaneously — every tradition, every culture, every spiritual framework — and decipher what they share. The analogy: the Artemis II astronauts seeing Earth holistically from space, rather than one community at a time. •       The Ten Commandments, Listed: (1) Treat every being with compassion and dignity. (2) Do no harm; actively protect the vulnerable. (3) Speak and act truthfully, with integrity and humility. (4) Share generously, especially with those in need. (5) Seek to understand others before judging them. (6) Resolve conflict with fairness, forgiveness, and the intent to heal. (7) Live in harmony with nature and all forms of life. (8) Value wisdom over dominance; cultivate inner growth. (9) Honour the freedom and uniqueness of others. (10) Remember the sacredness of life; live with awe, gratitude, and love. Metzl's favourite is number ten. Andrew's objection: you don't need GPT-5 to come up with any of these. You could get most of them from a local Buddhist centre. •       Humanistic Slop vs. Selfish Survivalism: Andrew's repeated challenge: these principles are so unobjectionable that they amount to nothing — a kind of AI-laundered platitude. Metzl half-concedes, but argues that the absence of articulated universal norms is itself a political danger. Kant described the League of Peace in 1795. It took a hundred and fifty years and two world wars before the UN Charter was signed in 1945. The UN has now largely failed. If we don't articulate what we're trying to achieve, it becomes even harder to get there. Globalism, in Metzl's framing, isn't idealism. It's survivalism. Our fates are intertwined whether we recognise it or not. •       The Eleventh Commandment: World-changing technologies must be governed responsibly, including through national regulation and accountability frameworks. The hope that AI CEOs will voluntarily do the right thing — even the best of them, even Dario, even Demis — is a terrible strategy. It will fail, because some companies will always seek opportunity. The nuclear analogy: at the dawn of the nuclear age, nobody said “alright, just do whatever you want and good luck.” These are civilizational transformations. They require governance. These technologies are morally agnostic. They could be the best things ever and the worst things ever. The determinant is us. About the Guest Jamie Metzl is a technology futurist, geopolitics expert, sci-fi novelist, and founder and chair of OneShared.World. He is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a Singularity University expert. He is the author of The AI Ten Commandments: A New Moral Code for Humanity (co-authored with GPT-5, April 21, 2026), Superconvergence, and Hacking Darwin. References: •       The AI Ten Commandments: A New Moral Code for Humanity by Jamie Metzl and GPT-5 (April 21, 2026). •       OneShared.World — Metzl's global social movement and Declaration of Interdependence. •       Episode 2877: Keith Teare on AI Is Not Dangerous — the Silicon Valley seminary argument, one episode prior. •       Episode 2878: Victoria Hetherington on The Friend Machine — the AI intimacy investigation that immediately precedes this show. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: (00:31) - Why GPT-5 and not Claude? The co-author question (02:58) - Is this a joke? The Chautauqua origin story (05:09) - The Refik Anadol distinction: collaboration vs. fraud (07:57) - From the genome to the moral code: why collaborate with AI (08:54) - What is Chautauqua? The six-thousand-person standing ovation (09:53) - Moses's problem: the biblical 10 commandments examined (12:48) - Sam Altman and the Ronan Farrow piece (14:00) - Advanced praise from the Vatican and a leading reform rabbi

Bill Crews speaks with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr regarding the consequences of the 2026 U.S. military campaign against Iran. Carr describes the United States as a global "disruptor," arguing that by launching strikes without a UN Security Council resolution or congressional approval, the U.S. has committed a breach of the UN Charter. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us Fan MailOn Inside Geneva this week, we ask: in a world of violent conflict, is the UN – which was founded to keep the peace – doing its job?“On many fronts the UN is doing indispensable work every day, bringing food to hungry people and ensuring practical standards for how we cooperate on the planet. Most countries follow the UN's rules and principles on an everyday basis, so not too bad. [Former UN Secretary-General] Dag Hammarskjöld said that the UN was not made to take us to heaven, but to prevent us from going to hell, and that's still true: after 1945 there have been no new world wars,” says Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide. But with the big powers causing conflict, does the UN need a different structure?“It's worth remembering that when the UN Charter was adopted in 1945, 50 countries were present at the table, and today there are 193 member states. So almost three‑quarters of the UN's membership have not had a say in the rules of the game that they are now bound by, and they are very frustrated by that lack of voice and representation,” says Heba Aly, director of Article 109.Can a new, reformed UN restore some peace in the world before it's too late?“History shows that after every severe crisis we come together and try to create a better system, which is what happened after the two world wars. First we had the not‑so‑successful attempt of the League of Nations, but then the much more successful UN, learning from what had gone wrong with the League of Nations. I hope we don't need to relearn this through a third world war or anything like that,” says Eide. “For the UN overall, I think it's going to go through a very difficult and dark period. You know, sometimes you just have to hit rock bottom. I hope that, coming out of that, we can emerge with a new global social contract. And if that difficult period leads us to something better, then that is something worth fighting for,” says Aly. Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.Get in touch!Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.chTwitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_enThank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter. For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/Host: Imogen FoulkesProduction assitant: Claire-Marie GermainDistribution: Sara PasinoMarketing: Xin Zhang

As the globe is being strangled economically by Donald Trump & Bibi Netanyahu's unnecessary war of choice with Iran — we take an-in depth look at the rapidly spiraling out of control act of aggression against the sovereign state of Iran.Prior to going to air with this episode, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, said in his resignation letter to President Donald Trump that he “cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran and that the Islamic Republic posed no imminent threat to the United”.We submit that the evidence shows that Donald Trump doesn't have the foggiest idea of what to do next in Iran — surrounded by “yes men” and imbeciles — people who are uniquely unqualified for the roles that they hold in his administration.All military plans change within the first hour of the battle.  It's clear that the Trump administration had no plan.  No plan survives contact with the enemy.It is essential to be flexible, to show leadership, and adaptability, as plans often require immediate revision based on real-time feedback and unexpected situations.Before the war began, Trump disregarded the direct advice of his top military adviser, Gen. Dan Caine, who warned him that Iran would likely respond by attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz and effectively closing it.  Trump replied by suggesting that Iran's government would capitulate before it could close the strait or that the U.S. military could keep the strait open.Neither of those two things have taken place. Trump was wrong on both aspects.One of the wisest and most capable war tacticians ever, Sun Tzu, reminds us of one of his core principles from The Art of War, which was to emphasize the fact that the best way to win a war is to never conduct one in the first place.Tzu felt that the highest form of victory is winning through strategy, diplomacy, or psychological warfare rather than costly physical battle. Trump knows nothing of those concepts — pigeonholing himself because he simply does not read.Many observers consider the unprovoked strikes by the U.S. and Isreal to be a breach of Article 2 section (4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state.The government of Isreal does this regularly with no consequence.For the last 20 years Netanyahu has been saying that Iran was 2 weeks away from getting a nuclear bomb. Iran does not have a nuclear bomb.Reports of destroyed homes, schools, and health facilities, as well as significant civilian fatalities — (again, all acts of war that Isreal takes part in regularly) including over 1,300 deaths in initial strikes—have prompted allegations of war crimes.The United States has faced criticism for actions interpreted as having a "no quarter" policy, as stated by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth — such as sinking Iranian naval vessels rather than capturing them, which is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.—   We'll drill down on the history of US/Iran relations.—  Provide details on the 2015 Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).—  And deliver the up-to-the minute facts regarding the war with Iran as well as the impact of the Strait of Hormuz being closed to most traffic and the effects of this.Trump's “little excursion” (as he termed it) has forced global oil prices and the cost of gasoline at the pump sharply higher; it has imperiled the food supply across the globe as well as causing fertilizer prices to skyrocket with no sight in subsiding any time soon.Follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot!We want to hear from you!Support the show

The 2026 US/Israel war against Iran is a rapidly evolving, multi-front war.  What started as a massive joint air campaign (Operation Epic Fury) and involved the execution of Ayatollah Ali Khameini and some 40 other senior Iranian leaders and key military commanders has expanded into a regional confrontation involving cyber warfare, energy blockades and direct missile exchanges without any current sign of an uprising by the Iranian people to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Hormuz Straits remain effectively closed to Western-aligned commercial traffic, creating a looming crisis of global economic disaster.   Following their discussion with Shadow Attorney General Lord Wolfson KC in the 4th March episode on the legality of the initial US/Israel attack on 28th February 2026, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC are joined once again by LSE Professor of International Law, Devika Hovell, to continue the debate on the international law issues generated by the Iran War.      What are the international law rules which govern the use of force by States as established in the 1837 Caroline Criteria and the UN Charter? To what extent have those rules developed to reflect the reality of a nuclear threat represented by a rogue State actor such as Iran? Has the “imminence” test inherent in the justification for anticipatory self-defence developed so as to permit an attack from the moment a hostile actor acquires the capability to destroy you using nuclear weapons rather than when they actually push the button? And is Trump's threat to obliterate Iran's power generation system a threat to commit a war crime, with obvious implications for the UK's continued willingness to permit the US to use UK bases for bombing raids on Iran?  --  Covering the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future.  What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system?  Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays.        Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.         Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law.      Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades.  Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape.    If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the US-Israel war against Iran intensifies with no clear end in sight, a critical question remains: Is this war legal? On March 10, the United States submitted a letter to the United Nations Security Council, justifying its strikes - carried out alongside Israel - as "necessary and proportionate" self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But does this argument truly meet the legal threshold for self-defense? What rules of international law apply as this conflict escalates?

Send a textA single stretch of water is now dictating the mood of global markets and the direction of a widening war. We dig into the Strait of Hormuz crisis and President Trump's whiplash messaging: demanding other countries step in, hinting the U.S. “maybe shouldn't be there,” and floating coalition talk that even close allies appear unwilling to join. When the world's energy chokepoint becomes a battlefield problem, “keep it open” stops sounding like a slogan and starts looking like an escalation ladder.From there, we follow the money trail and the lived reality. Oil hovering near $100 a barrel can be a win for producers while still being brutal for families facing higher gas prices, costlier shipping, and travel disruptions. We talk through how tanker insurance, commercial routing, jet fuel, and supply chain shock can turn a regional conflict into global economic pressure. We also examine why escorting ships isn't a clean fix, why mines and coastal missile batteries change the math, and why any serious attempt to “secure” the strait can pull the U.S. toward ground-force commitments that nobody wants to own publicly.We also step back into the information war. A sharp media segment on JD Vance's ideological trajectory raises questions about power, donors, and how leaders sell hardline policy to a mass audience. Then we evaluate the international law argument featured on Democracy Now with economist Jeffrey Sachs, who calls the U.S.-Israel attack a blatant UN Charter violation and warns of catastrophic blowback. The throughline is credibility: with allies balking, markets jittery, and nuclear claims contested, the hardest part isn't starting a war. It's finding an off-ramp.Subscribe for more deep coverage, share this with a friend, and leave a review with your take: what's the first realistic step toward de-escalation? Support the show

Hello Interactors,This one attempts to balance the privilege of cold analytical escapism with the gruesome rehumanization of past, present, and future atrocities. I end up trying to make sense of the political psychology that leads to such jubilant violence. While it can be understood, its the very intelligibility that makes it so intolerable. PRESSURE, POWER, IMPUNITYIn 1965, as my umbilical cord was being severed in Iowa, U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were cutting the ears off innocent dead Vietnamese children. And their parents. The shriveling cartilage served as “proof” they were killed. They'd string them into necklaces or hoard them in “ear bags” as trophies. Their commanders demanded a tally. This morbid ritual, born from the military's obsession with numeric “success” metrics amid “search and destroy” orders, exposed not just individual moral depravity but a systemic disregard for human life.Such barbarity serves as just another example of America's enduring pattern of defying Geneva Conventions on civilian protections, proportionality, and prohibited weapons. These atrocities are wrapped in bureaucratic euphemisms like “collateral damage”; all to evade accountability and perpetuate unchecked imperial violence.When barbarity returned like a boomerang to hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, the term “collateral damage” was absent. But “search and destroy” came back. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” These expanded interpretations of and the idea of a “continuing, imminent threat” led to doctrines that allowed drones and bombs to be used as sanctioned forms of force across borders. Targeted killings are domestic justifications that override attempts at global legal constraints.As my own kids were being born in 2004, U.S. drones were flying across the skies over Afghanistan, Yemen, and beyond, vaporizing wedding parties, schools, and outdoor markets, shredding innocent men, women, and children into mangled flesh mixed with bone fragments. These ‘Hellfire missiles' were sold to the public as possessing surgical precision. These “precision” killings, justified as “targeted” under the euphemism of “signature strikes,” leave behind charred craters, orphaned survivors screaming amid the rubble, and “double taps” that slaughter first responders rushing to the scene. And here again the body-count calculus of modern warfare dehumanizes the dead as mere “collateral” in an endless cycle of remote-control atrocity.However, unlike in Vietnam, groups controlling casualty numbers and combatant definitions created incentives to undercount civilian deaths to bolster the claims of legal precision. Because such reasoning was long classified, external scrutiny relied on leaks and sporadic court‑ordered disclosures.Obama deployed 10 times more drones than Bush. They all occurred in legal grey zones. They were justified through broad claims of self‑defense against “imminent threats” from non‑state actors operating in countries not formally at war with the United States. Legal assessments have found that many attacks did not meet the threshold of an “armed conflict” — meaning strikes there should have been constrained by international human‑rights law — thus violating requirements of necessity, last resort, and proportionality.Recent incidents, like the Iranian Khamenei killing, further expose gaps between law and practice. In the case of the 2020 killing of Iranian General Soleimani, scholars argue that the official rationale failed to meet the UN Charter's Article 51 requirement of an actual armed attack. Since then, the U.S. and its allies have instead advanced an even more squishy view of “imminence” to justify anticipatory defense against imagined potential threats. Critics say these interpretations transform what was intended to be a narrow exception into a license for routine, preemptive killing.The U.S. government is seemingly unequaled in its interpretive flexibility of law. Rather than submitting to adjudication, they practice “norm‑shaping” noncompliance. This involves acting first, then using rhetoric and diplomatic influence to normalize or justify those actions. Research on the UN Security Council demonstrates how veto rights, opaque bargaining, and diluted resolutions enable permanent members to escape condemnation while weaker states are disciplined. In effect, international law becomes a language powerful states can manage, not a rulebook to obey.U.S. operations in Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere are often positioned as short-term “strikes” meant to sustain “rules-based order.” But the U.S. doesn't have to behave orderly. Moreover, these actions show a longstanding system where the law on force sustains hegemony. Though the justifications shift — from humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and WMD prevention in Iraq to “responsibility to protect” in Libya or preemption against terrorists or nuclear programs in Iran — the underlying logic is the same. You can see why the U.S. systemically refuses to ratify the 1998 Rome Statute. This treaty established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and grants it jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes — genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression — committed by nationals of states parties or on their territory. It was created after ad hoc tribunals like as those in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to ensure accountability. But by remaining outside the Rome Statute (while accepting some of its principles in domestic law), the United States — along with Israel, Russia, and Sudan — avoids the ICC's adjudicative authority over its own personnel and operations. The U.S. (and three other states) has essentially insulated its use of force from external legal accountability.This suggests a deeper political culture where U.S. force is assumed to be protective and exceptional. When national security conflicts with legal limits, they are negotiable, and most Americans accept this as normal.The stability of these justifications over time suggests a shared worldview and America's place in it. It's a settler-imperial, racialized imagination of place that makes some regions dangerous and disorderly, while viewing U.S. power as the necessary instrument for security and progress.STRUCTURES OF SPATIAL SUPPRESSIONTo get a better grasp of how legal gray areas become permanent features of the geopolitical landscape, we need to look beyond the law and explore the spatial imaginaries that come before it. The “lawless power” I describe is not merely a failure of international oversight; it is the modern expression of a settler-imperial logic that has long used the map as a weapon. This logic functions through what historian Patrick Wolfe termed a “logic of elimination”: a systemic drive to clear space for a dominant order by rendering the original inhabitants of that space invisible, irrelevant, or “out of place”. The bridge between the “body-count calculus” of Vietnam and the “Hellfire missiles” of today lies in the historical practice of declaring territory terra nullius — land belonging to no one. By portraying Indigenous lands as “empty” or “underused,” settler-colonial legal fictions justified removal and massacre as “regrettable but necessary” steps toward progress. This spatial erasure serves as the architectural blueprint for modern drone warfare. Just as 19th-century maps rendered Native peoples “spatially absent” to normalize dominion, modern military doctrines use “bureaucratic euphemisms” to turn vibrant communities into “trouble spots” and “problem-spaces” for management.When a “signature strike” occurs, the target is not a legal subject but a “pattern of life”. This is the ultimate form of algorithmic governance, where the individual is erased by the data-point before the missile is even fired. By defining specific regions as inherently “disorderly,” the U.S. creates domestic justifications that override attempts at global legal constraints. In this framework, regions treated as a modern “frontier” — a zone where ordinary rules of necessity and proportionality are “negotiable”.This “geometry of dominion” is not exclusive to foreign policy; it is mirrored in the way U.S. power organizes its own domestic heartland. George Lipsitz's concept of the “white spatial imaginary” explains how space is arranged to prioritize the exclusion and property rights of the affluent while subjecting communities of color to displacement and surveillance. We see this in the physical “concrete” of urban planning:* Highway Infrastructure: Interstate routes were systematically redirected to demolish poor white, Black, and brown communities, ensuring affluent white residents could “get home faster”.* Nuisance Abatement: In cities like Los Angeles, nuisance laws are used to “preemptively reclaim” areas through speculative policing and banishment, enacting a fantasy of dominion over racialized bodies.* Racialized Sorting: The world is sorted into “secure cores” and “unruly peripheries,” a dynamic that scales from the “redlined” neighborhood to the “sanctioned zone” or “reservation”.In both the urban grid and the global borderland, the goal is this: to produce order for some while underwriting “legally malleable violence” on “others”. The “collateral damage” of an Afghan, Palestinian, or Iranian village is the international equivalent of the “nuisance” of a demolished neighborhood. Both are viewed through an imperial lens that deems certain lives “disposable” for the sake of a broader, racialized security. This spatial sorting creates the infrastructure of impunity. When a region is mapped as a “zone of exception,” the violence committed there ceases to feel like a violation; it feels like “maintenance” of a “rules-based order”. This explains why the U.S. can “practice ‘norm-shaping' noncompliance,” acting first and using diplomatic influence to “normalize” the act afterward. The settler-imperial imagination flattens distant worlds into “mappable, legally alienable parcels” of land management. Whether it is the “search and destroy” missions of the 1960s or the “precision” killings of the 2020s, the underlying logic is to secure the “place” of the empire, the “place” of the other must be erased.Once the world is spatially divided into “ordered property” and “disorderly wards,” it becomes easy for the citizens of the empire to grow comfortable with the authoritarian's embrace. Dispossessions become necessary to sustain a system where the “other” is already spatially and legally absent. Their suffering barely registers as a tragedy. It's just the cost of a “righteous” mission.PROPHETS OF POLITICAL POWERSpatial erasures don't just reorganize the land; they reorganize the human psyche. When a society “sees like an empire,” it adopts a specific cognitive map that determines who belongs and whose lives are disposable. This “architecture of absence” is maintained by a set of psychological formations that transform the fear of a “disorderly” world into a mandate for righteous violence.Political psychology shows how when people experience the world as dangerous and uncertain, they become more attracted to strong leaders, rigid hierarchies, and harsh treatment of “threatening” others. This cluster of attitudes is the essence of authoritarianism. It is not just a set of ideas but a way of managing fear and uncertainty. Authoritarianism is especially potent when it fuses with nationalism and religion. Then it becomes “messianic authoritarianism”: the sense that “our” nation or faith community has a special mission in history, is under constant attack, and must therefore be defended at all costs, even by breaking ordinary rules. In this mindset, law and institutions are not neutral constraints; they are either tools for the mission or obstacles to be overridden.Research on authoritarianism finds a common psychological “core” across left and right: a desire for enforced conformity, punishment of deviants, and centralized control, particularly when people believe they live in a dangerous world.(14) When this core is wrapped in national or religious stories of chosen-ness and persecution, it becomes a powerful justification for violence and impunity. Leaders who promise order, purity, and redemption can present extreme measures as necessary acts of protection.Over time it builds a collective narcissism: the belief that “our” group is great but unfairly unrecognized and disrespected by others. This is different from healthy hometown pride. It is fragile, defensive, and quick to see insults everywhere. Studies show that collective narcissism predicts hostility toward out‑groups, support for aggressive policies, conspiratorial thinking, and backing for populist and authoritarian leaders. People who feel their group's greatness is denied are more willing to tolerate or endorse harm, so long as it is framed as restoring respect and status.In religious Zionism, White Christian nationalism, and Khomeinist Shi‘ism, these dynamics are visible through different meanings. Religious Zionist currents interpret control of the land as a non‑negotiable step in a divine redemption process, making territorial compromise feel like a betrayal of a given god's plan, not just a political choice. Christian Zionist and White Christian nationalist discourses in the United States have portrayed the nation as founded by a Christian god, under siege by secular and racial “others,” and uniquely tasked with defending Israel and Christian civilization. Leaders like Donald Trump have been cast as “instruments of god” because of specific policies (for example, on Israel or Iran), even when their personal conduct contradicts ordinary religious standards. The mission outweighs the man. Khomeini's project in 1979 Iran framed the revolution as rescuing Islam from corruption at home and humiliation abroad, casting the new state as the vanguard of an oppressed community engaged in permanent struggle. Even as his regime oppressed…and still does.(16)Across these cases, the same psychological building blocks appear:A world narrated as dangerous and full of enemies.A group identity that is both superior and victimized (“we are great, but unrecognized and under attack”).A leader who claims to embody the group and its destiny.A willingness to override normal legal and moral limits in the name of survival and redemption.Political psychology also clarifies how these movements treat opponents. When group identity becomes sacred and narcissistic, critics inside the group are labeled traitors, and external critics are portrayed as existential threats. Research shows that collective narcissism and authoritarianism are linked to dehumanization of out‑groups and even justification of political violence; seeing others as less than fully human makes it easier to ignore or excuse their suffering.(15) This helps sustain the kinds of selective empathy and invisible harms I've described. Some deaths are tragedies, others are regrettable but necessary, and others barely register at all.These patterns are not confined to a few extremists. Everyday citizens can be drawn in because messianic authoritarianism offers psychological rewards. In times of rapid change, economic insecurity, or cultural displacement, people often experience self‑uncertainty: a shaky sense of who they are and where they belong. Joining a tightly defined, morally exalted group — with clear enemies and a clear mission — can resolve that uncertainty. Research on uncertainty and extremism shows that people in this state are especially attracted to groups and leaders that provide simple, absolutist answers and sharply draw the line between “us” and “them”.(14) Messianic narratives deliver exactly that.Once in place, these psychological formations feed directly into infrastructures of impunity. If one believes the nation is uniquely chosen yet unfairly treated, international law and human rights norms can be reimagined as biased constraints imposed by hostile outsiders, rather than shared rules. If one experiences politics as a siege, then surveillance, occupation, or lethal force are not lawless; they are “defensive” acts that outsiders cannot judge. Authoritarian dispositions, collective narcissism, and uncertainty‑driven group identification supply the emotional energy that keeps unequal legal arrangements and racialized security practices politically acceptable.We're living in a world now where legal impunity and structural violence are not sustained only by special interests and institutions. They are also held up by recurring psychological patterns rooted in fear of danger, longing for certainty, wounded pride, and the seductions of belonging to a “chosen” community. Messianic authoritarian projects in Israel, the United States, and Iran differ in theology and history, but they draw on similar psychological wells to make extraordinary violence feel not just permissible, but righteous.Throughout history those claiming victory have found that while they may be able to occupy a territory, they cannot “win” against a people who remain connected to it. The presence of 575 Indigenous nations (and 1200 tribes and villages) with government-to-government relations with the U.S. is testimony. Topophilia is a heavy weight. Those killed aren't coming back, but those who remain or have been displaced do. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, “No one won the last war, and no one will win the next war.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

China's top political advisory body has concluded its annual session adopting key reports and resolutions, after more than 2,100 members met for a week to deliberate on state affairs (01:02). The Chinese foreign minister says U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran violate the UN Charter, urging all sides to halt military operations and return to dialogue (24:06). Global oil prices have swung sharply, following the latest Middle East conflict and a possible historic IEA oil release (36:47).

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (3/4/26). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v74gh2i","div":"rumble_v74gh2i"}); Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): (21) R A W S A L E R T S on X: "

 A Turning Point in Irish History50 years ago on Sunday past I was in Cage 11 in Long Kesh prison camp. It was a Monday. It was also 1 March 1976, the date on which the British Labour government's decision to end political status took effect.Political status had been introduced in June 1972 after a hunger strike by republican prisoners and as part of the context for negotiations that were to take place between republicans and the British.In March 1974 a Labour government, led by Harold Wilson, came to power and embarked on a new strategy to defeat Irish republicans. Ending political status was only one part of it. Laws were changed to allow for ease of convictions in the non-jury Diplock Courts, particularly using beatings and forced confessions. New cellular special control units called H-Blocks were constructed in 1975 in another part of Long Kesh, to house the expected new influx of those who were now to be designated ‘criminals.'Merlyn Rees was the British Secretary of State with responsibility for the new ‘Ulsterisation, Criminalisation, Normalisation' strategy. Its aim was simple; reduce the number of British soldiers getting killed, and replace them with the locally recruited RUC and UDR. In the British mindset local forces were expendable and their deaths less likely to cause a political fuss In Britain and internationally.Criminalisation was about trying to convince people, especially the nationalist section of our people, that republicans were motivated by greed. That we were ‘gangsters' involved in a ‘criminal conspiracy. We were, in the new language of the 70s, – godfathers – mafiosi – out for what we could make personally. The British hoped that this new spin on an old propaganda theme would reduce support in Ireland and the international community.  International Women's DayThis Sunday is International Women's Day. For over one hundred years the 8 March has been set aside to specifically celebrate women who are active in society; in their communities, trade unions, voluntary organisations, in their families and the political institutions.It is also an occasion when the inequalities, injustices and violence still suffered by many women are highlighted. According to one UN report nearly 70 per cent of countries surveyed revealed that women continue to face more barriers than men to accessing justice. And for the 676 million women who live within 50 kilometres of an active conflict zone “justice systems are largely absent and perpetrators act with impunity.”The reality is that millions of women and girls around the world are confronted by violence, discrimination, and abuse. The United Nations defines violence against women and girls as: “Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life.”  War of Aggression in the GulfAs I write this, the war declared by President Trump last Saturday against Iran, and his avowed aim of regime change, is continuing as the death toll rises. The US and Israel had clearly been planning this attack for some time. The USA did this as negotiations involving it and Iran were, according to the Oman mediators, making progress.This war must be condemned. Diplomatic efforts had not ended. There was still hope. President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu broke international law, ignored Iran's sovereignty, and destroyed that hope with bombs.Under the UN Charter, states are prohibited from using unilateral force, except in two cases: (1) when authorized by the UN Security Council or (2) in self-defence. The US and Israel did not go to the UN Security Council ahead of Saturday's strikes. That only leaves self-defence

Join Jemma and Marina who are trying to process the latest news cycle.At time of record, Donald Trump has bombed seven countries in twelve months. Super - really earning that peace prize he's after. Diplomacy with Iran was reportedly within reach just 24 hours before US–Israeli strikes began yet here we are. Still, ignorance is bliss because some Dubai influencers are mainly worried about missing meetings or a flight. The Trawl ladies look at the legality of the attacks under the US Constitution and the UN Charter, the collapse of negotiations, and the human cost, including, tragically the bombing of a girls' school and a hospital hit in Tehran. Why does the language shift depending on who the victims are? And why does nuance suddenly disappear when it comes to condemning both authoritarian regimes and reckless military escalation?They discuss the euphoria felt by some Iranians at the death of the Ayatollah and the worry about what comes next. They examine Trump's call for Iranians to “rise up” against a heavily armed regime, the historical precedent of abandoned uprisings, and the now-familiar promise that the “worst bombing is still to come.”There's nuclear hypocrisy, oil politics, Operation “Epic Fury,” and a Medal of Honor ceremony detour into ballroom interiors.If this is liberation, it's a strange way of showing it.It's chaos. It's escalation. It's The Trawl.Thank you for sharing and please do follow us @MarinaPurkiss @jemmaforte @TheTrawlPodcast Patreonhttps://patreon.com/TheTrawlPodcast Youtubehttps://www.youtube.com/@TheTrawl Twitterhttps://twitter.com/TheTrawlPodcastIf you've even mildly enjoyed The Trawl, you'll love the unfiltered, no-holds-barred extras from Jemma & Marina over on Patreon, including:• Exclusive episodes of The Trawl Goss – where Jemma and Marina spill backstage gossip, dive into their personal lives, and often forget the mic is on• Early access to The Trawl Meets…• Glorious ad-free episodesPlus, there's a bell-free community of over 3,300 legends sparking brilliant chat.And it's your way to support the pod which the ladies pour their hearts, souls (and occasional anxiety) into. All for your listening pleasure and reassurance that through this geopolitical s**tstorm… you're not alone.Come join the fun:https://www.patreon.com/TheTrawlPodcast?utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Historically, the EU has placed crucial importance on upholding international law. But after the US and Israeli strikes in Iran, the EU is turning a blind eye to the violation of the principles of the UN Charter. Are we witnessing an erosion of this principle within the EU?Production: By Europod, in co-production with the Sphera network.Follow us on:LinkedInInstagram Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The US-Israeli war on Iran is expanding into a global conflict. The European Union supports it. The UK is letting Trump use British bases. Germany and France are involved. Canada backs it. Tehran has retaliated, in self-defense, hitting US military bases in Gulf countries. Ben Norton explains. VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un25sqF6tnU Topics 0:00 US-Israeli war on Iran expands 0:46 Pentagon admits war is based on lies 2:54 France, Germany, UK join war 3:36 USA is using British bases 4:44 Iran retaliates in self-defense 5:48 Iran hits US bases in Middle East 6:20 US casualties 6:42 CIA coup installed Iran's shah 7:22 USA wants hegemony 8:21 Iran closes Strait of Hormuz 9:23 US & Israel target Iranian leaders 11:19 Supreme leader Ali Khamenei 12:28 US & Israel bomb a school 13:38 Germany ignores international law 15:10 Friedrich Merz, BlackRock boy 16:27 Canada PM Mark Carney 17:48 (CLIP) Carney WEF Davos speech 18:45 West's hypocrisy 20:19 Trump's war unites the West 21:33 Canada supports US-Israeli war 22:11 Netanyahu ICC arrest warrant 22:49 Nuclear weapon negotiations 24:24 US surprise attacks on Iran 26:34 Myth of "rules-based order" 27:20 Germany supports war 28:39 Turning victim into aggressor 29:29 France supports war 31:07 EU supports war 32:10 Ursula von der Leyen hypocrisy 33:16 EU works with Israel 33:40 EU backs Gulf monarchies 35:22 EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas 36:51 UN Charter on use of force 37:37 UN Charter on self-defense 38:14 Western imperialism 39:15 Outro

China firmly opposes and strongly condemns the attack on Iran and the killing of its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by the United States and Israel, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Sunday, while experts warned that the joint military strikes will have far-reaching repercussions in the region and the world.外交部发言人3月1日表示，中方坚决反对并强烈谴责美国和以色列对伊朗发动的袭击以及刺杀伊朗最高领袖哈梅内伊的行为。专家警告称，此次联合军事行动将对该地区乃至全世界产生深远影响。Calling the attack a grave violation of Iran's sovereignty and security, the spokesperson said it also tramples on the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and basic norms governing international relations. "We urge an immediate stop to the military operations, no further escalation of the tense situation, and joint effort to maintain peace and stability in the Middle East and the world at large," the spokesperson added.发言人在回答记者提问时表示，袭击并杀害伊朗最高领导人，严重侵犯伊朗主权安全，践踏《联合国宪章》宗旨原则和国际关系基本准则，中方对此予以坚决反对和强烈谴责。"我们敦促立即停止军事行动，避免紧张事态进一步升级，共同维护中东和世界和平稳定。"发言人强调。The US-Israeli airstrikes, which entered a second day on Sunday, have killed more than 200 people in Iran, including Khamenei, 86, and dozens of students at a girls' primary school in the southern part of the country, according to Iranian authorities.据伊朗官方证实，美以空袭进入第二天，已造成伊朗境内200余人死亡，包括86岁的最高领袖哈梅内伊，以及该国南部一所女子小学的数十名学生。The joint strikes have drawn the Middle East into unknown territory, as Iran has retaliated by firing missiles targeting Israel and 27 US military bases in the region.此次联合打击使中东地区局势进入未知境地，伊朗已向以色列及该地区27处美军基地发射导弹作为报复。The attack has opened a dangerous new chapter in terms of US intervention in Iran, marking the second time in over eight months that the US and Israel have attacked Iran amid negotiations over its nuclear program.此次袭击开启了美国干预伊朗事务的危险新篇章，这是八个多月以来，美以在其核计划谈判期间第二次对伊朗发动袭击。On Sunday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi sharply criticized the strikes in a telephone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, calling for an immediate cessation of US-Israel military operations in Iran, a prompt return to dialogue and negotiations, and joint opposition to such unilateral actions. Wang said that China has consistently advocated adherence to the principles and purposes of the UN Charter and is opposed to the use of force in international relations.3月1日，外交部长王毅同俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫通电话时严厉批评了此次袭击行动。王毅呼吁立即停止军事行动，尽快重回对话谈判，共同反对单边行径。王毅表示，中方一贯主张遵守联合国宪章宗旨原则，反对在国际关系中使用武力。The blatant killing of a leader of a sovereign state and the incitement of regime change are "unacceptable", he said, adding that these actions "violate international law and the basic norms governing international relations".在国际关系中动辄使用武力，公然击杀一个主权国家领导人、鼓动政权更迭，这种行为"不可接受"，他补充说，这些行为"违反了国际法和国际关系基本准则"。Noting that the conflict has spread throughout the Persian Gulf, Wang said the situation may be pushed into a dangerous abyss, and China is highly concerned about this. He emphasized that launching military strikes against a sovereign state without the authorization of the UN Security Council undermines the foundation for peace established after World War II.王毅指出，目前战事已延烧至整个波斯湾，中东局势有可能被推向危险的深渊，中方对此高度关切。他强调，未经联合国安理会授权对主权国家大打出手，破坏二战之后建立的和平根基。Wang called on the international community to clearly and unequivocally voice opposition to the world regressing to the law of the jungle.王毅呼吁国际社会应当发出明确、清晰声音，反对世界倒退回丛林法则。Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the killing of Khamenei was a "declaration of war against Muslims". Iran issued a statement vowing that this "great crime will never go unanswered", its official news agency IRNA reported.伊朗总统佩泽希齐扬表示，刺杀哈梅内伊是对"穆斯林的宣战"。伊朗官方通讯社援引伊方声明称，这一"重大罪行绝不会得不到回应"。Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera network on Sunday that a new supreme leader will be chosen in "one or two days". Iran's semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported that leadership duties would temporarily be assumed by the Iranian president, the judiciary chief and a jurist from the nation's Constitutional Council.伊朗外长阿拉格齐3月1日告诉半岛电视台，将在"一两天内"选出新的最高领袖。伊朗塔斯尼姆通讯社报道，领导职责将暂时由伊朗总统、司法部长和宪法监护委员会的一名法学家共同承担。Local media reports quoted Iran's Revolutionary Guard as saying that the Strait of Hormuz — a vital waterway for oil and gas shipments — was restricted to vessels on Saturday.当地媒体报道援引伊朗革命卫队称，霍尔木兹海峡——这一至关重要的油气运输水道——已于2月28日对船只实施限制。Jasim Al-Azzawi, an analyst in Iraq, said the conflict already looked broader and deeper than the 12-day Israel-Iran war in June last year.伊拉克分析人士阿扎维表示，此次冲突的广度和深度已经超过去年6月以色列与伊朗为期12天的战争。The recent strikes "followed mediators' announcement of a significant 'breakthrough' in negotiations", with talks set to resume last week, Al-Azzawi told Al Jazeera, adding that "clearly, diplomacy was never meant to succeed and was merely used to mask war plans".他指出，最近的袭击发生在调解人宣布谈判取得重大"突破"之后，原定上周恢复谈判，"显然，外交从未真正打算成功，只是用来掩盖战争计划的幌子"。"From the timing of the attack, it is apparent that Washington and Tel Aviv had already made up their minds weeks ago. Iran's readiness to retaliate across the region suggests it is willing to wage a long war rather than compromise," he added."从袭击时机来看，华盛顿和特拉维夫显然数周前就已下定决心。伊朗准备在整个地区进行报复，这表明它愿意打一场持久战，而不是妥协。"他补充道。Sun Degang, director of Fudan University's Center for Middle Eastern Studies in Shanghai, said the previous rounds of talks between the US and Iran appear to have been a mere delaying tactic, giving time for US-Israeli military deployments.复旦大学中东研究中心主任孙德刚分析认为，前几轮美伊谈判似乎只是拖延战术，为美以军事部署争取时间。"The US and Israel, seeking a pretext for military action against Iran, used the talks to enable the deployment of two US aircraft carriers to the Middle East," he said."美国和以色列在寻求对伊朗采取军事行动的借口时，利用谈判促成了两艘美国航母向中东的部署。"Sun added that the recent strikes in Iran may be the beginning of a full-scale conflict, as this time, Iran's determination to retaliate is significantly greater, potentially leading to the mobilization of its full capabilities to counter US-Israeli actions".他表示，此次对伊朗的打击可能是全面冲突的开端，因为这一次伊朗报复的决心明显更大，可能会调动全部能力来反击美以行动。Yan Wei, deputy director of the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies at China's Northwest University, pointed out that Iran's retaliatory actions may lead to the US and Israel taking further escalatory measures.西北大学中东研究所副所长闫伟指出，伊朗的报复行动可能导致美以采取进一步升级措施。"In addition to intensifying military strikes and potentially expanding the range of targets, the US and Israel may further tighten economic sanctions on Iran, and step up information campaigns aimed at weakening the Iranian government's domestic and international standing," he said."除了加强军事打击和可能扩大目标范围外，美以可能进一步收紧对伊朗的经济制裁，并加大信息宣传力度，以削弱伊朗政府在国内外地位。"Emphasizing that the US-Israeli strikes in Iran constitute violations of the UN principles and international law, Yan urged nations in the Global South, as well as the UN, to unite to promote peace, end the conflict and resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through political means.他强调美以在伊朗的打击行为违反联合国原则和国际法，敦促全球南方国家以及联合国团结起来，促进和平，结束冲突，通过政治手段解决伊朗核问题。far-reaching repercussion /ˈfɑːˈriːtʃɪŋ ˌriːpəˈkʌʃən/深远影响grave violation /ɡreɪv ˌvaɪəˈleɪʃən/严重侵犯retaliate /rɪˈtælieɪt/报复blatant /ˈbleɪtənt/公然的incitement of regime change /ɪnˈsaɪtmənt ɒv reɪˈʒiːm tʃeɪndʒ/煽动政权更迭abyss /əˈbɪs/深渊unequivocally /ˌʌnɪˈkwɪvəkəli/明确地

International law scholars are often among the sharpest critics of the Trump administration—but what if the usual story misses something essential? In this episode, RBI interim director Eli Karetny speaks with NYU international law professor Robert Howse about Trump's complicated relationship with the UN Charter system, from Gaza to Venezuela and Iran. The conversation also turns to political theory: Leo Strauss's reputation as a neoconservative godfather, the shadow of Carl Schmitt, and how today's MAGA New Right recycles older anxieties about liberalism, virtue, and masculinity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

International law scholars are often among the sharpest critics of the Trump administration—but what if the usual story misses something essential? In this episode, RBI interim director Eli Karetny speaks with NYU international law professor Robert Howse about Trump's complicated relationship with the UN Charter system, from Gaza to Venezuela and Iran. The conversation also turns to political theory: Leo Strauss's reputation as a neoconservative godfather, the shadow of Carl Schmitt, and how today's MAGA New Right recycles older anxieties about liberalism, virtue, and masculinity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

International law scholars are often among the sharpest critics of the Trump administration—but what if the usual story misses something essential? In this episode, RBI interim director Eli Karetny speaks with NYU international law professor Robert Howse about Trump's complicated relationship with the UN Charter system, from Gaza to Venezuela and Iran. The conversation also turns to political theory: Leo Strauss's reputation as a neoconservative godfather, the shadow of Carl Schmitt, and how today's MAGA New Right recycles older anxieties about liberalism, virtue, and masculinity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

International law scholars are often among the sharpest critics of the Trump administration—but what if the usual story misses something essential? In this episode, RBI interim director Eli Karetny speaks with NYU international law professor Robert Howse about Trump's complicated relationship with the UN Charter system, from Gaza to Venezuela and Iran. The conversation also turns to political theory: Leo Strauss's reputation as a neoconservative godfather, the shadow of Carl Schmitt, and how today's MAGA New Right recycles older anxieties about liberalism, virtue, and masculinity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

International law scholars are often among the sharpest critics of the Trump administration—but what if the usual story misses something essential? In this episode, RBI interim director Eli Karetny speaks with NYU international law professor Robert Howse about Trump's complicated relationship with the UN Charter system, from Gaza to Venezuela and Iran. The conversation also turns to political theory: Leo Strauss's reputation as a neoconservative godfather, the shadow of Carl Schmitt, and how today's MAGA New Right recycles older anxieties about liberalism, virtue, and masculinity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Jean Krasno is in the faculty of the Department of Political Science at the City College of New York and is also a lecturer at Columbia University.  The “United Nations: Policy and Practice” is her most recent book. Dr. Krasno was authorized by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to organize his papers for publication. She is now leading a campaign to elect a woman UN Secretary-General. The UN was created in 1945 to eliminate the scourge of war, promote economic and social development, and enhance human rights worldwide. The UN has had nine secretaries-general to lead the organization. Emphasis is on selecting a woman when SG Guterres's term ends. The next UN SG must be an effective communicator with the 193-member states in the UN General Assembly and the various publics around the world. Most Americans are mostly unaware of how important UN services impact their lives every day.

Michael John-Hopkins, a legal scholar and a senior lecturer in law, discusses the theory of international law and its practice—from its conceptual foundation to what international law promises (sovereignty, non-use of force, equality of states, the UN Charter, rule of law) versus how it is actually applied (power politics, selective enforcement). He delineates the historical context of US foreign policy in Latin America, including the Monroe Doctrine, to show its continuity with current events, explaining why certain actors fail to observe international law and what contributes to this failure. Querying if the recent US kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores is uniquely egregious under international law, John-Hopkins delves into the broader patterns within US foreign policy and the myriad historical examples throughout US history of its regime-change and resource-grab colonialism, now set within a modern context. Vituperating the use of economic boycotts and sanctions as a means of strong-arming democracy, he notes how such acts of hybrid warfare constitute violations of international law while also signalling the erosion of the rules-based order. John-Hopkins considers Israel's repeated violations of international law from the inception of its statehood through the present, scrutinising Israel's illegal military operations, settlement policies, responses to terrorism, and the genocide of Palestinians all of which demonstrate the gap between norms and practice globally. Get full access to Savage Minds at savageminds.substack.com/subscribe

The Donald Trump administration is waging a war against all multilateral institutions and international law itself. He withdrew the US from most global organizations and created a "Board of Peace" as an alternative to the UN that is entirely controlled by the USA. Ben Norton explains the imperialist strategy to impose unipolar hegemony on the world. VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3nGsmSI3EQ Topics 0:00 New phase of imperialism 1:17 US war on international law 2:03 US colonial expansionism 3:05 USA withdraws from international orgs 4:30 Board of Peace: Trump's UN alternative 6:27 Board of Peace isn't about Gaza 7:39 Board members: US officials & oligarchs 9:10 Most countries reject invitation 10:04 Trump didn't invite Africa 11:10 China opposes US-led world order 12:08 Trump's US unipolar pay-to-play plan 13:25 USA attacks Canada over China deal 15:19 Importance of international law 17:20 UN Charter upholds sovereignty 18:27 Goal of US imperialism 19:34 Outro

Harvey found a great clip from the Chris Hedges Report (http://chrishedges.substack.com/) with Norman Finkelstein in which they discuss the recent UN Security Council Resolution to support the Trump peace plan and Peace Board for Gaza. Does this resolution undermine human rights, the UN Charter, the United Nations itself?

U.S. Military Action in Venezuela and Its Aftermath U.S. operation in Venezuela was not a war but a short military action to arrest Nicolás Maduro, described as an indicted narco-terrorist. This was not intended as a regime change through force but rather a law enforcement action supported by the military. After Maduro’s arrest, Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s former Vice President and a staunch communist, was sworn in as interim president. The text provides extensive background on her Marxist roots, corruption allegations (including gold smuggling), and anti-American stance. Advocations for free and fair elections in Venezuela to replace the current regime with a pro-America, pro-market leader, highlighting Venezuela’s vast oil and gold reserves and its potential for economic recovery if corruption and communism are removed. There is discussion of U.S. legal precedent (e.g., Noriega case, Ker-Frisbie doctrine) supporting extraterritorial arrests and the constitutional authority of the President to order such actions, even if they conflict with international law like the UN Charter. Minnesota Political Crisis and Somali Fraud Scandal The second part shifts to domestic U.S. politics, focusing on Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who allegedly faces a massive fraud scandal involving Somali immigrant communities and misuse of government funds. The fraud is described as “the worst instance of fraud in American history,” totaling around $9 billion. Minnesota Democrats are guilty of corruption, vote-buying schemes, and inciting violence to distract from the scandal, even suggesting that Walz called for “war with the federal government.” A congressional hearing exchange is included, highlighting welfare dependency statistics among Somali immigrant households compared to native Minnesotans, painting a picture of systemic abuse and failed integration policies. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Security Council convened an emergency meeting on Monday in response to American military operations in Venezuela that captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife— forcing dozens of countries to publicly respond to one of the most audacious U.S. actions in recent memory. Anjali and Mark break down what unfolded in the chamber: which countries issued the strongest condemnations, which were more restrained, and which attempted to thread the needle between defending a core principle of the UN Charter and avoiding the wrath of Donald Trump. They also ask a larger question: can an American foreign policy openly premised on hemispheric domination, resource extraction, and territorial expansion coexist with a United Nations designed to prevent exactly that? Is this an existential moment for the UN? Can the rules-based international order survive? And why has Somalia's UN ambassador suddenly landed in MAGA crosshairs? We discuss all this—and more! https://www.globaldispatches.org/40percentoff  

Can the United States arrest a foreign head of state by sending FBI agents—and military troops—into another country? On the latest episode of Stanford Legal,  Professor Pam Karlan sits down with international law expert and Stanford Law lecturer Allen Weiner to discuss the recent extraction of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro. Their wide-ranging conversation focuses on the uneasy space where U.S. law collides with the constraints of international law.Weiner, a former U.S. State Department legal adviser and now director of several international law–and humanitarian-focused programs at Stanford Law School, explains how domestic legal theories advanced to justify Operation Absolute Resolve in contrast with the UN Charter's ban on the use of force. He situates the episode in a longer arc of U.S. efforts to reconcile military action with international legal limits, including earlier debates over actions in Kosovo and Libya.The legal questions are substantial, but the stakes ultimately turn on precedent and norms: how U.S. actions are understood by other states, what they signal to rivals such as Russia and China, and whether the international system begins to resemble the logic captured in Thucydides' Peloponnesian Wars—that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”Links:Allen Weiner >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00) Is a threat a use of force? (00:16:18) Pressure, coercion, and the non-intervention line (00:17:02) Venezuela policy and the specter of escalation (00:28:24) Law, power, and the South China Sea  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Host: Lara Bird-Leakey Guest: Dr. Yusra Suedi, Lecturer in International Law, University of Manchester; Visiting Professor, Geneva Graduate InstituteIn this important episode of International Law in Crisis?, Lara Bird-Leakey sits down with Dr. Yusra Suedi to unpack one of the most fraught legal and geopolitical flashpoints of our time — the United States' recent use of force against Venezuela.Recent U.S. military operations, including lethal strikes against alleged drug networks and the detention of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, have sparked fierce international debate. Critics argue these actions stretch or violate foundational principles of international law, including the prohibition on the use of force, sovereignty, and the narrow conditions under Article 51 of the UN Charter for lawful self-defense. What constitutes a legitimate claim of self-defense under international law? Can the activities of transnational criminal organisations — such as drug cartels — ever amount to an “armed attack” justifying the use of force by another state? And what legal and normative thresholds must be met before force can be lawfully used beyond a state's own borders? In this conversation, Dr. Suedi challenges prevailing narratives that seek to justify the U.S. actions on legal grounds. She argues that no credible legal justification exists for the U.S. strikes under the accepted definitions of self-defense, as drug trafficking does not meet the stringent international law threshold of an armed attack. Accepting such reasoning, Suedi explains, would dangerously expand the exception to the rule against the use of force, undermining the UN Charter's core protections. Dr. Suedi also addresses how non-state actors - including organised criminal groups - are treated under international law, the legal distinction between law enforcement and armed conflict, and the broader implications for the international order if powerful states bypass legal constraints for political or economic ends.Dr. Suedi is a Lecturer in International Law at the University of Manchester, where she directs the LLM programmes in International Law. She also serves as Visiting Professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute and holds a PhD in Public International Law from the University of Geneva. Yusra writes on legal theory and practice at her blog Simplified Approaches to International Law (SAIL), where she explores complex legal issues with clarity and insight.

The United Nations has condemned the US attacks in Venezuela over the weekend as a direct violation of the UN charter. As the former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro awaits his next court date in New York, the Venezuelan Attorney General joins others urging recognition of Mr Maduro's immunity under international law.

The United Nations Security Council's first meeting of 2026 heard a global chorus of UN member states strongly denounce the United States' strike in Venezuela as a grave violation of the UN Charter, although a US representative defended it as a "surgical law enforcement operation".At Monday's emergency session, Sun Lei, China's deputy permanent representative to the UN, urged Washington to heed the international community's "overwhelming voice", comply with international law and the UN Charter, halt actions that infringe on other countries' sovereignty and security, stop toppling Venezuela's government, and return to dialogue and negotiations as the path to a political solution.Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, seized and brought to the US on Saturday after a large-scale US strike in the South American nation, pleaded not guilty in federal court in New York on Monday to charges of narco-terrorism. Crowds of protesters gathered outside the courthouse, many voicing opposition to the US action against Venezuela.Sun expressed China's "deep shock" and strong condemnation of what he described as the "unilateral, illegal and bullying acts" of the US, and he called for Washington to ensure the safety of Maduro and his wife, and to release them immediately."The US has placed its own power above multilateralism and military actions above diplomatic efforts,"Sun said, warning that such actions pose a grave threat to peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean and even internationally.He said the US military strikes "wantonly trampled" on Venezuela's sovereignty and violated core tenets of the UN Charter, including the principles of sovereign equality, noninterference in internal affairs, peaceful settlement of international disputes, and prohibition of the use of force in international relations."The lessons of history are a stark warning," Sun said, adding that military means are not the solution to international problems, and the indiscriminate use of force will only lead to greater crises.He cited past US actions, such as bypassing the Security Council to launch military operations against Iraq, attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, and the imposition of economic sanctions, military strikes and armed occupations in Latin America and the Caribbean.Those actions caused persistent conflict, instability and immense suffering for ordinary people, he said.The envoy reiterated that China firmly supports the Venezuelan government and people in safeguarding their sovereignty, security and legitimate rights and interests, and supports countries in the region in upholding Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace.He called on the US to change course, cease bullying and coercive practices, and develop relations and cooperation with countries in the region on the basis of mutual respect, equality and noninterference in internal affairs.Addressing the UN meeting, US economist Jeffrey Sachs said that the US military action and ongoing pressure violate Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.Sachs, president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, called these actions part of a long-standing US pattern of "covert regime change", citing a historical record of 70 such operations between 1947 and 1989 alone.The US should "immediately cease and desist from all explicit and implicit threats or uses of force against Venezuela", he said.Sachs said, "Peace, and the survival of humanity, depends on whether the United Nations Charter remains a living instrument of international law, or is allowed to wither into irrelevance."At the meeting, Russia's UN ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, also called for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife.The Russian envoy called the US military action in Venezuela a "crime cynically perpetrated" and a harbinger of a return to an era of "lawlessness", stressing that any conflicts must be resolved through dialogue as enshrined in the UN Charter.Backers of the US military operation in Venezuela, including Argentina, framed the action as a law-enforcement, anti-narco-terrorism step and argued it could open a path to restoring democracy.Representatives of many countries pushed back by arguing that democracy cannot be delivered through force and coercion, and that any political outcome must be decided by Venezuelans through peaceful and lawful means.Leonor Zalabata Torres, Colombia's UN envoy, said that "democracy cannot be promoted or defended through violence or coercion", and Venezuela deserves peace and democracy, prosperity and dignity, with a government whose sovereignty is defined by no one but the Venezuelan people and their institutions.Mexico's UN envoy, Hector Vasconcelos, warned that "regime change by external actors and the application of extraterritorial measures" is contrary to international law and that, historically, all such actions have done is to exacerbate conflicts and weaken the social and political fabric of nations.Paula Narvaez Ojeda, Chile's UN representative, noted that foreign interference caused extreme damage to her nation, and she stressed that democracy is best recovered through "the strength of organized citizens and through our institutions".Spain's representative to the UN, Hector Gomez Hernandez, said that democracy "cannot be imposed by force" and "force never brings more democracy".Brazil's UN ambassador, Sergio Franca Danese, said that international norms are "mandatory and universal" and do not allow for exceptions based on ideological, geopolitical or economic interests, such as the "exploitation of natural or economic resources".The envoy dismissed the notion that "the end justifies the means", saying that such reasoning lacks legitimacy and grants the strongest the right to define what is just or unjust while imposing decisions on the weakest.Representatives from other countries also emphasized that the US military intervention constituted a fundamental breach of the UN Charter and the principles of sovereign equality.France's representative said that when a permanent member of the Security Council violates the UN Charter, it "chips away at the very foundation of the international order".South Africa warned that "no nation can claim to be legally or morally superior" to another.Pakistan said that unilateral military action "contravenes these sacrosanct principles", while the A3 group, consisting of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and Liberia, said full respect for states' sovereignty and territorial integrity under the UN Charter is an essential foundation for international cooperation and peaceful coexistence.

Harry sits down with Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck to dissect the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. From the UN Charter and head-of-state immunity to the infamous 1989 Barr memo, they unpack the administration's legal gymnastics, multiple legal illegalities, and tenuous positions.  In particular, they zero in on the interplay between U.S. criminal law and the international law that we appear to have knowingly violated. They then turn to the long-term practical moral consequences of the operation, including the possible severe damage to U.S. credibility and strategic interests going forward. Mentioned in this episode: Steve's Substack post about Maduro's arrest: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/200-five-questions-about-the-maduro Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Power grabbed headlines, but the real story is law, limits, and what comes next. We sit down with Professor Anthony Colangelo of SMU to unpack the U.S. operation that seized Venezuela's leader and to separate a clean legal argument from messy policy ambitions. From irregular rendition to universal jurisdiction, we trace why courts can claim authority even after a cross‑border capture and how treaty obligations make narcoterrorism a shared international concern.We dive into the hard edge of immunity doctrine. Status‑based immunity protects a sitting head of state; conduct‑based immunity can persist after office, but not for acts condemned by international law. That distinction matters when a leader's actions create direct effects across borders. We also probe the collective self‑defense rationale under the UN Charter and why strict proportionality can fail as a deterrent against rational, high‑risk actors. The takeaway: legality can be clear while prudence is not.Then we confront the policy frontier: talk of running a country, steering succession, or taking oil turns a lawful seizure into a broader question of occupation and constitutional checks at home. What obligations follow a regime change? How do we minimize civilian harm, stabilize services, and hand control back quickly? Could trials in absentia provide accountability without escalating conflict? Throughout, we push past media echo chambers to focus on facts, precedent, and measurable limits on executive power.If you're tired of spin and looking for a rigorous, good‑faith analysis that respects both international law and constitutional guardrails, this one's for you. Listen, share with a curious friend, and tell us: legal win, policy risk, or both? If our work adds clarity, subscribe and leave a review to help others find the show.Support the showEngage the conversation on Substack at The Common Bridge!

On our first show back after the holidays, Brian Finucane, a senior advisor at the International Crisis Group, explains the legal ramifications of invading Venezuela and kidnapping its leader for “law enforcement.” We'll break down the Supreme Court's ruling eviscerating Trump's effort to conscript National Guard troops to terrorize cities. And for subscribers, Justin Baldoni will once again teach us (how not to) CivPro.Links:Trump v. Illinois [Supreme Court]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_b07d.pdfBrian Finucane, Presidential War Powers, the Take Care Clause, and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, Cornell Law Review (2020)https://live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Finucane-final.pdf1989 OLC Memorandumhttps://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/authority-federal-bureau-investigation-override-international-law-extraterritorial-lawUS v. Commonwealth of Virginia [In-state tuition for immigrant children]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72085714/united-states-v-commonwealth-of-virginia/JGG v. Trumphttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?order_by=descLively v. Baldonihttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?order_by=descShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Event Summary (WATCH: PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESS CON HERE) The U.S. military executed a highly complex and precise operation in Caracas, Venezuela, to apprehend Maduro. The mission involved over 150 aircraft, advanced coordination across multiple military branches, and cyber and space operations. The operation was completed without any American casualties, which is emphasized as a major success. Geopolitical Context Venezuela’s significance stems from its vast oil reserves (largest in the world) and strategic location near the U.S. Maduro’s regime is portrayed as illegitimate, corrupt, and deeply involved in drug trafficking and alliances with U.S. adversaries (Russia, China, Iran, Hezbollah). The discussion highlights Venezuela’s decline from being one of the wealthiest nations in the 1950s to a failed state under socialist rule. Legal Justifications President Trump acted within his constitutional authority under Article II as Commander-in-Chief. References are made to historical precedents, notably the 1990 capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama. The legal basis includes: FBI’s extraterritorial arrest authority. Precedents like the Ker-Frisbie doctrine and United States v. Alvarez-Machain. DOJ opinions (including one by Bill Barr) affirming presidential power to authorize such actions. Anticipated legal challenges include head-of-state immunity and UN Charter arguments. Future Implications (WATCH HERE: Is Cuba Ready to Fall?) There will be geopolitical ripple effects in Latin America, especially Cuba and Colombia. Avoiding prolonged U.S. military occupation in Venezuela is key Discussion of possible democratic elections and leadership changes in Venezuela. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen to the article with analysis from the author:  North Korea claimed it conducted a successful test of a hypersonic missile.  “A sub-unit under a major firing strike group of the Korean People’s Army conducted a missile launching drill on January 4,” a statement in North Korean state media said. “The drill was conducted as part of the operational evaluation of the sustainability, effectiveness, and operation of the DPRK’s war deterrent while evaluating the readiness of the hypersonic weapon system, verifying and confirming its capability for fulfilling mission and developing the missile soldiers’ firing capability.” Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un oversaw the missile test. “To be honest, our such activity is clearly aimed at gradually putting the nuclear war deterrent on a highly developed basis.” He continued, “The reason why it is necessary is exemplified by the recent geopolitical crisis and complicated international events.” The test was conducted shortly after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was kidnapped by US forces. While Kim did not link the test to Maduro's capture, the North Korean leader has often argued that Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal prevents the US from attempting an Iraq or Libya-style regime change.   The North Korean Foreign Ministry denounced the US attack on Venezuela. “The incident is another example that clearly confirms once again the rogue and brutal nature of the US which the international community has so frequently witnessed for a long time.” The statement added, “The Foreign Ministry of the DPRK strongly denounces the U.S. hegemony-seeking act committed in Venezuela as the most serious form of encroachment of sovereignty and as a wanton violation of the UN Charter and international laws with respect for sovereignty, non-interference and territorial integrity as their main purpose.” Sunday's missile launch follows North Korea testing a long-range strategic cruise missile and a new anti-aircraft system late last year. 

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife have been sent to a detention center in New York after they were captured in a large-scale US military strike. A UN spokesperson says UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is deeply alarmed by the escalation in Venezuela, emphasizing the importance of full respect of international law, including the UN Charter. What aspects of international law has the US action violated? Will the US capture of Maduro necessarily lead to government change in Venezuela? Host Ding Heng is joined by Cao Ting, Director of Center for Latin American Studies at Fudan University and Professor Wang Jin from Northwest University in Xi'an, China.

The United States will take interim control of Venezuela after capturing President Nicolas Maduro and does not rule out deploying US troops on the ground, US President Donald Trump said on Saturday, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned the US strikes set "a dangerous precedent"."We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition," Trump said during a news conference ‍at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, hours after a US overnight attack on the South American country.A US occupation "won't cost us a anything" because the United States would be reimbursed from the "money coming out of the ground", Trump said, referring to Venezuela's oil reserves. Trump said American energy companies would rebuild Venezuela's broken infrastructure under US supervision.The president also said that the military operation against Maduro was not necessarily over, warning that the US stood ready to escalate if required."We are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so," Trump said, although he added that the initial operation was so successful that "we probably don't have to do a second."He also said that US troops could remain on the ground in Venezuela during the interim period."We're not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to have [them]," he said, pointing out that American forces had already operated inside the country. "We had boots on the ground last night at a very high level," he added.Guterres is "deeply alarmed" by US military action in Venezuela that sets "a dangerous precedent", his spokesperson said on Saturday."These developments constitute a dangerous precedent," Guterres' spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said in a statement. "The ‌secretary-general continues to emphasize the importance of full respect — by all — of international law, including the UN Charter. He's deeply ⁠concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected."Moments after Trump announced the ‍US would ⁠run the South American country until a "safe" transition was ‌completed, Spain said it will not "recognize an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region toward a horizon of uncertainty and belligerence," Prime ‍Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote on X.Venezuela and Colombia have asked the 15-member Security Council to meet, diplomats said, though the meeting had not yet been scheduled, Reuters reported.In a letter to the Security Council on Saturday, Venezuela's UN Ambassador Samuel Moncada described the operation as a "deadly and treacherous US military attack" against "a country that is at peace," warning it "has serious implications for regional and international peace and security."He said the US had violated the founding UN Charter, citing its provision that "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."In a separate letter to the Security Council's January president, Venezuela's Permanent Mission to the United Nations condemned what it called "brutal, unjustified and unilateral" US armed attacks.The mission said that US forces bombed "civilian and military sites" in Caracas and other locations and called the operation "a flagrant act of aggression" that violated the UN Charter.Countries that criticized US strike mainly focused on the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force and urged de-escalation.China said it was "deeply shocked and strongly condemns the use of force by the US against a sovereign country and the use of force against the president of a country.""Such hegemonic acts of the US seriously violate international law and Venezuela's sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region. China firmly opposes it," a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said.The spokesperson urged Washington to abide by international law, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and stop violating other countries' sovereignty and security.Russia strongly urged the US leadership to release Maduro and his wife, the Russian foreign ministry said on Saturday.In a statement, the ministry called on Washington to reconsider its position regarding the couple.The statement also stressed the need to create conditions for resolving any existing issues between the United States and Venezuela through dialogue.France's Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said, "The military operation that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro violates the principle of not resorting to force, that underpins international law".He added that "no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside" and "only sovereign people themselves can decide their future".A leading international-law expert at Chatham House said that the US rationale collided with the UN Charter's baseline prohibition on the use of force."International law prohibits the use of force as a means of national policy," Marc Weller, program director of Chatham House's International Law Programme, said in a post on the London-based policy institute's website on Saturday.Short of a UN Chapter VII mandate, force is generally lawful only "in response to an armed attack" or possibly to rescue a population facing "imminent threat of extermination," he said."Clearly, none of these requirements are fulfilled" by the US operation against Venezuela, he said, adding that US interests in stopping drugs, or portraying the Maduro government as a criminal enterprise "offers no legal justification".

The United States has launched airstrikes on Caracas and detained Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro, in an unprecedented operation that has drawn condemnation from governments around the world. France, Spain, Brazil, China, Russia and the European Union say the action likely violates the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state. Independent media has never been more important. Please support this channel by subscribing here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 Join this channel with a membership for exclusive early access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Buy Anthony's microphone: https://kellards.com/products/electro-voice-re20-broadcast-announcer-microphone-black-bundle-with-mic-shockmount-broadcast-arm Buy Anthony's black t'shirt: https://www.uniqlo.com/us/en/products/E455365-000/00?colorDisplayCode=09 Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our hosts, guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything, in line with the First Amendment right to free and protected speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Paul Jay rejects the false choice between  "Putin as a new Hitler" and the anti-NATO Left's defense of Russia. Under the UN Charter and Nuremberg principles, Russia's invasion is a war of aggression — there was no imminent threat and no "sphere of influence" justifies it. At the same time, NATO expansion was provocative and deceptive, and the U.S. refusal to take it off the table helped set the stage for war. The discussion highlights: •The Ukrainian people's right to self-determination and to overthrow their own oligarchy; • how the Iraq War normalized lawless aggression and weakened global norms; • the role of Russian, Ukrainian, U.S., and European oligarchies in prolonging the conflict; • why parts of the Left blur first principles by excusing one imperialism to oppose another; • China's strategic interest in sustaining the conflict; • Ukraine and Gaza serve as "battle labs" for AI weapons and companies like Palantir. • NATO functions as a "protection racket," getting Europe to increase military spending to 5%. • and why a negotiated peace — even with territorial concessions — may be necessary to create space for democratic struggle against oligarchic power on all sides. With host Barry Stevens.

In this excerpt from CBC Ideas, Augusto López-Claros reflects on a rapidly changing world and the civic movements demanding that the UN evolve with it. From the failures of the current system to the rising pressure from civil society, he outlines why the UN Charter's original architects left behind a little-known pathway — Article 109 — designed to ensure periodic review. Nearly 80 years later, that review has never happened. This episode explores why now may be the moment to invoke it, and how a global coalition is working to modernize multilateralism for the 21st century.Learn more on GlobalGovernanceForum.org

Ralph welcomes Judith Enck (founder and president of Beyond Plastics, whose goal is to eliminate plastic pollution everywhere) to discuss her new book “The Problem with Plastic: How We Can Save Ourselves and Our Planet Before It's Too Late.” Then, Ralph reflects on the 60th anniversary of “Unsafe at Any Speed.”Judith Enck is the founder and president of Beyond Plastics, whose goal is to eliminate plastic pollution everywhere. In 2009, she was appointed by President Obama to serve as regional administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and served as deputy secretary for the environment in the New York Governor's Office. She is currently a professor at Bennington College, where she teaches classes on plastic pollution. She is co-author (with Adam Mahoney) of The Problem with Plastic: How We Can Save Ourselves and Our Planet Before It's Too Late.I support recycling…But the sad reality is that plastic recycling has been an abysmal failure. Always has, always will be…You cannot really accomplish high levels of recycling with plastics because you would literally have to do hundreds, if not thousands of different sorting. The people who know this the most are the plastic manufacturers. Yet they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars confusing and deceiving the public into thinking: “Don't worry about all your plastic, just toss it in your recycling bin,” knowing that most plastic never gets recycled.Judith EnckA lot of people feel overwhelmed and that it's hopeless and what can one person do? And that fails to acknowledge that the reason we're not making more progress on climate change is because of the political power of fossil fuel companies. On the plastics issue, we're taking on fossil fuel, chemical, and consumer brand companies and plastics companies. So it's a lot. It's amazing we get anything done. But people around the country are coming together and they're getting victories.Judith EnckI do think if you start paying attention to plastic in your own life, you see that there are alternatives. And then you climb the civic ladder. So you try to reduce plastic in your own home. Then you look at your kid's school. Then you look at your faith community. Then before you know it, you're at your city council asking what can the city do to reduce plastics. You're going to get a couple victories there. And then you find the statewide environmental groups that are working on this. This is for the long haul.Judith EnckThe important thing about [Unsafe at Any Speed] now is: sure, it saved millions of lives and the laws are still on the books, and even Donald Trump can't tear seatbelts and airbags out of our cars. But if we tried to do this again today, it wouldn't happen. And that's because the concentration of corporate power over Congress and the media is so much more intense now. And it's also because the decline of civic institutions and democratic institutions has been very pronounced over the last few decades. And that is sobering us up.Ralph NaderNews 12/5/251. Our top stories this week are on Venezuela. First, the BBCis out with a report on the American military build-up around the Latin American nation, which includes “air and naval forces…a nuclear-powered submarine and spy planes...a range of aircraft carriers, guided-missile destroyers, and amphibious assault ships capable of landing thousands of troops.” So far, the Trump administration has sent mixed messages on whether they plan to launch a full-scale invasion of the Bolivarian Republic, but Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro shows no signs of stepping down without a fight, having declared a “massive mobilisation” of 200,000 military personnel throughout the country. Most ominously, on November 29th, President Trump declared Venezuela's sovereign airspace closed, per the Wall Street Journal.2. However, American bellicosity towards Venezuela is unpopular at home. A CBS poll found that only 30% of Americans would favor the U.S. taking military action in Venezuela, compared to a whopping 70% opposed. Another question in this same poll found that only 13% of Americans consider Venezuela a “major threat” with 48% considering the country a “minor threat” and 39% report they don't think Venezuela is a threat at all. Unfortunately, the lack of popular support for war is unlikely to constrain the Trump administration much, but it is a notable difference from the lead-up to the Iraq War, when 70% of Americans favored an invasion. The American people want peace, even if the government does not. 3. Another key detail from the CBS poll is that “Three in four Americans…say Trump would need congressional approvalbefore taking military action in Venezuela, including just over half of Republicans.” In light of this fact, it is significant that a bipartisan group in Congress is pushing a War Powers resolution to “block strikes on Venezuela,” per the Intercept. This new push in the House is sponsored by stalwart progressive Congressman Jim McGovern and co-sponsored by dissident Republican Thomas Massie along with other progressives like Reps. Ro Khanna, Lloyd Doggett, and Joaquin Castro, among others. As the Intercept piece notes, this resolution must be acted on in the House within 15 days, but by then the administration may have already acted, pre-empting the resolution. A similar resolution has also been introduced in the Senate, primarily backed by Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul, with backing from other Senate Democrats, per the Hill.4. Of course, American aggression towards Venezuela is reverberating out into the international community in myriad ways. Generally speaking, while United Nations officials decry the actions, America's European allies have kept quiet – with many speculating that these countries would prefer Maduro's ouster in order to get ready access to Venezuelan oil and decrease their dependence on Russia. China however, has issued a stiff condemnation of American actions. The Iranian Students News Agencyquotes Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian's statement at a Beijing press conference, which where in he stated, “China opposes any action that violates the purposes and principles of the UN Charter or infringes upon the sovereignty and security of other countries…[and] opposes foreign forces interfering in Venezuela's internal affairs under any pretext.” He added, “We urge all parties to keep the Latin American and Caribbean region a peaceful zone and not allow the situation to escalate further.” However, beyond these condemnations, it remains unclear what, if anything, China will do to check American aggression.5. Despite all of this however, House Democratic leadership is typically feckless. In a corollary to the increasing likelihood of strikes against Venezuela directly, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has stepped up the campaign of striking boats off the country's coast. Recently, the Washington Post revealed that after a strike in September which left survivors clinging to life, Hegseth ordered a second strike, directing Admiral Frank Bradley to “kill everybody.” This revelation led to calls for House Democrats to pursue impeachment against Hegseth on charges that he violated the laws of war. However, Axiosreports House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries will not pursue a Hegseth impeachment. While true that such a push would likely be DOA, it sends a dark signal that the administration can do something like this and face virtually zero official condemnation. 6. Nevertheless, Republicans have taken such unpopular actions that it seems Democrats will retake the House, perhaps by a wide margin, in the 2026 midterms – or perhaps before. So far, 31 House Republicans have announced they will not seek re-election, with some retiring and others running for other offices. Still others however are signaling that they will resign their offices before the midterms, shaving the slim House GOP majority ever slimmer. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has announced she will retire in January 2026. Now, Congresswoman Nancy Mace is reportedly considering resigning early as well, though she has denied such rumors, per KOMO News. Either way, Democrats should be taking this moment to prepare an agenda for if and when they retake control of the chamber. 7. Turning to consumer protection news, Jalopnik reports Senate Republicans are seeking to rollback decades of automobile safety regulations. In a recent hearing held by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation ostensibly to put the CEOs of the Big Three American car manufacturers, as well as Tesla, on the record as to why cars have become so expensive, Republicans on the committee used the opportunity to blame safety regulations. Jalopnik notes that Republican Senators specifically targeted “automated emergency braking, the requirements for which will not come into effect until 2029 and have no bearing on current car prices…[and] back-seat alarms to remind you if you've left a child or pet back there. According to Kids and Car Safety, since 1990 at least 1,165 children have sweltered to death in hot cars, and another 7,500 survived with varying degrees of injury.” The cost of these sensors will amount to about $50 per vehicle. In short, while there are many reasons cars have become considerably more expensive in recent years – including everything from tariffs to data centers buying up all electronic parts – blaming safety regulations is a tired canard. 8. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. is moving to kill a proposed Food and Drug Administration rule to test for asbestos in talc-based cosmetics, the Guardian reports. As this report notes, cosmetics companies have known about potential asbestos contamination of talc since the 1950s, but that fact, like so many other corporate secrets, was suppressed, only coming to light in the 1970s. Asbestos is a highly carcinogenic substance. It has been banned in over 50 countries and “No…level of exposure is considered safe.” However, attempts to ban the substance in the U.S. have been stymied by industry, beginning with the overturning of the EPA's 1989 ban.9. In more legal news, Reuters reports the British government has announced plans to “remove the historic right to trial by jury,” for defendants in criminal cases carrying potential sentences of under three years in jail. The government argues that this will help alleviate the tremendous backlog of cases before the British courts, despite the fact that the right to a jury trial in Britain dates back to the Magna Carta itself. Barbara Mills, chair of the Bar Council, which represents trial lawyers in the U.K., decried this move, stating ”there is no evidence that [the] removal [of jury trials] would reduce the backlog, nor has it been set out how an alternative system would be resourced…We urge the government to reconsider pursuing radical changes under the mistaken belief that radical equals effective.” 10. Finally, in local news, Washington D.C. Councilmember and Democratic Socialist Janeese Lewis George has officially launched her campaign to be the next mayor of the District of Columbia. Lewis George is the first serious candidate to announce a campaign to succeed unpopular three-term Mayor Muriel Bowser, who is retiring this cycle. Like Zohran Mamdani, Lewis George is prioritizing affordability in the increasingly expensive District as well as an emphasis on fixing city services like traffic safety improvement. According to the Washington Post, “Within hours of launching her campaign Monday morning, Lewis George's campaign said it had received enough money from enough D.C. residents to qualify [for the District's matching fund program], which provides public financing for campaigns that agree not to accept large-dollar donations and corporate contributions.” Within hours, “they had netted more than $110,000 in individual donations from 1,500 D.C. residents,” which after being combined with the matching funds, will total over $750,000.” However, many expect her main challenger to be Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, an ally of corporate interests and developers in the District, who will likely be bankrolled by those same interests. Whatever the future holds, this will surely be the most competitive citywide race the District has seen in decades. This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Alex Newman is an award-winning international freelance journalist, author, researcher, educator and consultant. He is senior editor for The New American. He is co-author of Crimes of the Educators, author of Deep State: The Invisible Government Behind the Scenes and author of Indoctrinating Our Children to Death. He is founder & CEO of Liberty Sentinel and a national syndicator of radio and TV programs including Behind the Deep State which airs on WVCY Television and VCY.tv. Today is United Nations Day. It was 80 years ago today that the United Nations came into being by the signing of the UN Charter. The UN was created to maintain international peace and security and develop friendly relations between nations. They longed for international cooperation. How is that working out? So much of the world is sitting on a powder keg. Instead we have the UN lusting for control over the world's energy, the world's food supply, the world's housing, the world's transportation, the world's healthcare and even the world's education. As a matter of fact, the UN has just released a report titled, "Homeschooling Through a Human Rights Lens." This report, overseen by a communist, outlines the most draconian global assault on homeschooling in history. It claims governments must take total control, if they allow it at all.

Alex Newman is an award-winning international freelance journalist, author, researcher, educator and consultant. He is senior editor for The New American. He is co-author of Crimes of the Educators, author of Deep State: The Invisible Government Behind the Scenes and author of Indoctrinating Our Children to Death. He is founder & CEO of Liberty Sentinel and a national syndicator of radio and TV programs including Behind the Deep State which airs on WVCY Television and VCY.tv. Today is United Nations Day. It was 80 years ago today that the United Nations came into being by the signing of the UN Charter. The UN was created to maintain international peace and security and develop friendly relations between nations. They longed for international cooperation. How is that working out? So much of the world is sitting on a powder keg. Instead we have the UN lusting for control over the world's energy, the world's food supply, the world's housing, the world's transportation, the world's healthcare and even the world's education. As a matter of fact, the UN has just released a report titled, "Homeschooling Through a Human Rights Lens." This report, overseen by a communist, outlines the most draconian global assault on homeschooling in history. It claims governments must take total control, if they allow it at all.

The Security Council is deep into negotiations around authorizing an international stabilization force for Gaza.  But even if the Council approves such a mission, will it actually deploy? In this episode of To Save Us From Hell,  Mark and Anjali share their doubts. Also up: the Trump administration blew up a global deal to put a price on carbon in international shipping — a move that would have pushed the industry toward zero emissions. Mark and Anjali break down this latest clash between Washington and the U.N. But first, Anjali and Mark sit down with Heba Aly, director of a new coalition called Article 109, which is taking on a bold mission: reforming the U.N. Charter itself. Article 109 is a little-known provision of the Charter that enables member states to review and revise it — but it's never been invoked. So, is now the right time to open up the U.N. Charter to review? What would that actually entail? And is it even a good idea? Listen and learn! The full episode is available for our paying subscribers. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40percentoff 

To join our Mega Orderers Club, and get ad free listening, early episode releases, bonus content and exclusive access to live events, visit https://disorder.supportingcast.fm/  As Trump parades across the Middle East collecting adulation for his ‘eternal peace' deal, Jane and Jason break down the realities and explain that what was achieved was merely a hostage release, prisoner swap, and ceasefire. With Phase 2 looming and infighting already starting in Gaza, they look at the role of the various international actors (like Qatar, Egypt, UK, US) in possibly creating technocratic governance of Gaza. Plus: Is now the time for an Iran peace deal and as the UN Charter turns 80, what might the future of the organisation be? Finally, as they Order the Disorder, they discuss the need for progressive politicians to become better communicators. Producer: George McDonagh Subscribe to our Substack - https://natoandtheged.substack.com/ Disorder on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@DisorderShow Show Notes Links: Join the Mega Orderers Club via this link: https://disorder.supportingcast.fm/  For an explainer on Iran latest, read Gaza Ceasefire Could Give Iran Another Chance at Negotiations with the US - https://www.stimson.org/2025/gaza-ceasefire-could-give-iran-another-chance-at-negotiations-with-the-us/  Watch Jane discussing what's next for Middle East - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alTViSc3FJk  Read UN says countries are willing to help fund Gaza's $70 bln reconstruction https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-says-states-willing-fund-gazas-70-bln-rebuild-2025-10-14/  Read Why Was the President of FIFA at the Gaza Summit? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/14/world/middleeast/gianni-infantino-fifa-trump.html  Read What Gaza has been like since the ceasefire in Vox - https://apple.news/Ao4Xzg8yKT5-aVo-nm8769A  Read BBC Expert Says The Israel-Palestine Conflict 'Will Continue' Despite Trump's Peace Plan - https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-expert-says-the-israel-palestine-conflict-will-continue-despite-trumps-peace-plan_uk_68eb5d49e4b0abf20b6b0850?ncid=APPLENEWS00001   Watch Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa interview with CBC https://share.google/Eik7y67VmISQHiegN  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices