JurisDictions: International law podcast

Why do states take maps so seriously? What role do they play in the international legal order? And how do international courts take them into consideration? We discuss all of this and more, with an eye to the ongoing Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) case at the International Court of Justice.  Guests:  Dr Yusra Suedi, Lecturer in International Law at the University of Manchester.  Dr Brendan Plant, Hopkins–Parry Fellow and Director of Studies in Law at Downing College, University of Cambridge.  Prof Krista Wiegand, Professor in International Relations at the University of Tennessee,   Mr William Worster, Senior Lecturer at The Hague University of Applied Sciences    Hosts:  Dr Carl Lewis, Researcher in Public International Law, TMC Asser Institute  Ms Miranda Lalla, Student in the Advanced LLM in Public International Law, Leiden University and Intern, TMC Asser Institute    Related Works:   Bendel J and Suedi Y, Public Interest Litigation in International Law (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2024).   Plant B, ‘Arbitral Award of Oct. 3, 1899 (Guy. V. Venez.) (Decision on Jurisdiction) (I.C.J.)’ (2021) 60 International Legal Materials 1112.   Powell EJ and Wiegand KE, The Peaceful Resolution of Territorial and Maritime Disputes (Oxford University press 2023).   Riddell A and Plant B, Evidence before the International Court of Justice (British Inst of Internat Comparative Law 2011).   Suedi Y, ‘Man, Land and Sea: Local Populations in Territorial and Maritime Disputes before the International Court of Justice’ (2021) 20 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 30.  ——, ‘Man, Land and Sea: Local Populations in Territorial and Maritime Disputes before the International Court of Justice’ <https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/man-land-and-sea-local-populations-in-territorial-and-maritime-disputes-before-the-international-court-of-justice-an-introduction/> accessed 8 February 2024.  Worster WT, ‘The Frailties of Maps as Evidence in International Law’ (2018) 9 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 570.   ——, ‘Maps Serving as Facts of Law in International Law’ (2018) 33 Connecticut Journal of international law 278.   

In this episode, Prof. Tanja Aalberts and Dr Sofia Stolk share their research on the ‘building’ of the international community - The Peace Palace. What role did a curious ritual of gift-giving play in constituting the international community? What transnational, bureaucratic and monetary considerations (and bickering) were at play in the construction of the Peace Palace? If you want to read more about what is discussed in this episode, please check out the articles by our guests below- (both open access): T. Aalberts. and S. Stolk. Building (of) the international community: a history of the Peace Palace through transnational gifts and local bureaucracy T. Aalberts. and S. Stolk. The Peace Palace: Building (of) The International Community And also have a look at the Legal Sightseeing website: www.legalsightseeing.org

Carl discusses the case of Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), currently pending at the International Court of Justice,  with Prof. Ingo Venzke of the University of Amsterdam. Does it make sense to speak of universal values and their evocation in international law? Was the reaction of the Court in its ‘Order of 16 March 2022’ expected? What is the value of provisional measures set up by the Court? Follow the developments of the case:  https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/182

In a brand-new episode of JurisDictions, the Asser Institute’s international law podcast, researcher Dr Carl Lewis interviews Ammar Hijazi, Ambassador and Head of the Palestinian Mission to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Permanent Representative of the State of Palestine to International Organizations in The Hague. One year after the International Court of Justice delivered its Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (19 July 2024), Ambassador Ammar Hijazi reflects on his role as ambassador, the importance of pursuing justice within existing international legal mechanisms, as well as the need for states to show commitment to international law. “(…) today we see the final episodes of our erasure taking place in Palestine. These are now very clear, in terms of law. Everybody knows where everything stands. And it is up to States. Do they want this system to continue? Or do they want it to collapse on the basis of a few interests here and there, or on sheer power and bullying? That's a determination that is not up to the Palestinians. This is why it is a litmus test. Everybody's looking at Palestine.”

For the first time in history, a dedicated tribunal is being established to investigate and prosecute the crime of aggression. Join us in this episode, as Dr Gabrielė Chlevickaitė, International Criminal Law researcher at the Asser Institute, interviews H.E. Dr Anton Korynevych, Ambassador -at-large in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, on establishing the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.  Should you wish to read more, the Asser Institute has also released a Report on the Special Tribunal, offering the first legal analysis of the 'Council of Europe model,' as well as broader legal and policy considerations.

In this episode, we reflect on international sports law and the governance of football. Joined by Dr. Antoine Duval, we discuss the complexities of the football transfer system, particularly considering historical shifts following two landmark judgements: the Bosman (European Court of Justice, 1995) and the Diarra (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2024) rulings.   How have these landmark rulings offered the possibility for the football transfer system to shift in favour of players? What even is a football transfer? And, more broadly, what legal and ethical issues arise around the ‘world's game' and football mega events like the upcoming 2034 FIFA Men’s World Cup, which will be hosted by Saudi Arabia? In this episode, we discuss all of this and more.  Guest:   Dr Antoine Duval, Senior Researcher in International Law, TMC Asser Institute  Host and Editor:  Flora Bensadon, Research Trainee, TMC Asser Institute   Editor:  Dr Carl Lewis, Researcher in Public International Law, TMC Asser Institute   Further reading:  A Duval, 'Football at a Crossroads' (2024) Verfassungsblog   Bosman ruling (Case C415/93): Union royal belge des sociétés de football association ASBL, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean March Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman.  Diarra ruling (Case C-650/22): Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v BZ.   For further information, news and readings on questions of transnational sports law please visit the Asser International Sports Law Centre webpage. 

In this episode, we reflect on how Dharmic traditions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, engaged with principles of humanity in warfare long before the codification of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) with the Geneva Conventions. Joined by Dr. Robert Heinsch, Dr. Raj Balkaran, and Dr. Christina Kilby, we consider key IHL concepts such as collateral damage and proportionality, while reflecting on what ancient philosophies, theologies and laws can teach us about ethical warfare today. By reflecting on various historical roots and traditions of humanitarian principles, the episode seeks to encourage engagement with the evolution and applications of the laws of armed conflict. What role do the principles of humanity, distinction and proportionality play in the law of armed conflict? How does the element of storytelling in the Sanskrit epics contribute to the dissemination of ethical values? How has religion influenced International Humanitarian Law, specifically the implementation of humanitarian principles?  Guests:    Dr. Robert Heinsch, Associate Professor in International Law at Leiden University  Dr. Raj Balkaran, Scholar of Sanskrit Narrative Literature, Public Intellectual, Online Educator  Dr. Christina Kilby, Associate Professor of Religion at James Madison University    Editors:   Host - Dr Carl Lewis, Researcher in Public International Law, TMC Asser Institute   Co-host - Wamika Sachdev, Intern, Asser Institute   Flora Bensadon, Intern, Asser Institute 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has now provided two orders of provisional measures in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) case, following the further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza since the 26th of January 2024. But what are provisional measures? What does it mean to invoke a breach of an obligation owed to the ‘international community’? What implications follow from these proceedings beyond the peace palace? And in what sense could it be argued that the ICJ may be denying reality? In this episode, we discuss all of this and more.   Guests: Dr León Castellanos-Jankiewicz, Senior Researcher in International Law at the TMC Asser Institute Dr Shahd Hammouri, Lecturer in Law at the University of Kent Dr Giulia Pinzauti, Assistant Professor in International Law at Leiden University Dr Sarah Thin, Assistant Professor in International and European Law at Radboud University   Host: Dr Carl Lewis, Researcher in Public International Law, TMC Asser Institute

In this two-part episode, Carl Lewis is joined by an expert panel - Julie Fraser, Victoria Kerr, Sergii Masol, and Owiso Owiso -  to unpack some of the political and legal implications of the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. In part two, the conversation continues by considering the debate around the crime of aggression and the call for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression and how this relates to the two arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). They further discuss the question of double standards raised as a result of these arrest warrants and their impact on gender stereotypes about men and women in conflict. Finally, they consider whether this is a transformational moment for the ICC and international criminal justice more broadly. Panelists:Julie Fraser - Assistant Professor with the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) and the Montaigne Centre at Utrecht University. Victoria Kerr - Consultant with the Asser Institute Sergii Masol - Postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cologne Owiso Owiso – International lawyer and independent consultant specialising in international criminal law and transitional justice Resources and recommended reading: 1) O. Owiso - An Aggression Chamber for Ukraine Supported by the Council of Europe -  https://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/30/an-aggression-chamber-for-ukraine-supported-by-the-council-of-europe/ 2) P. Labuda - Beyond rhetoric: Interrogating the Eurocentric critique of international criminal law’s selectivity in the wake of the 2022 Ukraine invasion - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/beyond-rhetoric-interrogating-the-eurocentric-critique-of-international-criminal-laws-selectivity-in-the-wake-of-the-2022-ukraine-invasion/BD9D81E2CFA79A7930769DD0F18BBA63 3) S. Masol -  Ukraine and the International Criminal Court: Between Realpolitik and Post-truth Politics - https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/20/1/167/6580701 DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by individuals in their personal capacity are their own and do not reflect the views or positions of their respective organizations.

In this two-part episode, Carl Lewis is joined by an expert panel - Julie Fraser, Victoria Kerr, Sergii Masol, and Owiso Owiso -  to unpack some of the political and legal implications of the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. In part one, they discuss the background to the ICC Arrest Warrants and the role of immunity and jurisdiction. They address the question of head of state immunity and the practical considerations of the arrest warrants. They also deliberate on the reaction to these arrest warrants in Ukraine and Russia and the choice of charges raised by the ICC. Panelists:Julie Fraser - Assistant Professor with the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) and the Montaigne Centre at Utrecht University. Victoria Kerr - Consultant with the Asser Institute Sergii Masol - Postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cologne Owiso Owiso – International lawyer and independent consultant specialising in international criminal law and transitional justice Resources and recommended reading: 1) O. Owiso - An Aggression Chamber for Ukraine Supported by the Council of Europe -  https://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/30/an-aggression-chamber-for-ukraine-supported-by-the-council-of-europe/ 2) P. Labuda - Beyond rhetoric: Interrogating the Eurocentric critique of international criminal law’s selectivity in the wake of the 2022 Ukraine invasion - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/beyond-rhetoric-interrogating-the-eurocentric-critique-of-international-criminal-laws-selectivity-in-the-wake-of-the-2022-ukraine-invasion/BD9D81E2CFA79A7930769DD0F18BBA63 3) S. Masol -  Ukraine and the International Criminal Court: Between Realpolitik and Post-truth Politics - https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/20/1/167/6580701 DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by individuals in their personal capacity are their own and do not reflect the views or positions of their respective organizations.

In this episode, Dr Lucas Roorda joins us to discuss the Kiobel v Shell case, and the story behind the lawsuit that was dismissed by the Hague District Court in 2022. In particular, we discuss the procedural history of the decision, transnational litigation and how this case may be considered to illustrate procedural unfairness at play between individuals and corporations. Decision: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:2449 Disclaimer by Dr Roorda: During the podcast, the ‘Southern DC Circuit’ was mentioned in deciding Kiobel, but it was the Southern District Court of NY (SDNY), and the 2nd Circuit on appeal. It was also mentioned that Kavanaugh was on the Circuit Court deciding Kiobel on appeal, but that is not correct – Kavanaugh was the dissenting judge on the DC Circuit in Doe v. Exxon (I), the case that created the Circuit split with Kiobel.

In this episode, Carl discusses the International Court of Justice’s 1955 Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) judgment with Dr Péter D. Szigeti of the University of Alberta. What is special about this case? What questions has it left open? And ought the ICJ reconsider the role international law perhaps should play in respect to certain questions concerning the nationality of individuals? Judgments Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) -  Literature recommended by Dr Szigeti: Cindy G. Buys, Nottebohm's Nightmare: Have We Exorcised the Ghosts of WWII Detention Programs or Do They Still Haunt Guantanamo?, 11 Chicago-Kent J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1-73 (2011) Peter J. Spiro, Nottebohm and 'Genuine Link': Anatomy of a Jurisprudential Illusion, Investment Migration Working Papers IMC-RP2019/1 (2019)  Atossa Araxa Abrahamian, The Cosmopolites: The Coming of the Global Citizen (2015) Noora Lori, Offshore Citizens: Permanent Temporary Status in the Gulf (2019)