In this EJIL:The Podcast! Luíza Leão Soares Pereira, Fabio Costa Morosini and Artur Simonyan join Editor-in-Chief Sarah Nouwen. Inspired by their articles on Brazilian textbooks as Markers and Makers of International Law and on International Lawyers in Post-Soviet Eurasia, the conversation explores how students encounter international law during their studies, whether a study of textbooks in Brazil and Post-Soviet Eurasia leads to similar findings as Anthea Roberts’s pathbreaking study on how international law is taught in the states that are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and whether international lawyers in Brazil and Post-Soviet Eurasia feel part of what Oscar Schachter once called an invisible college of international lawyers. The gender citation gap also comes up.

We asked three distinguished Palestinian lawyers on to the podcast to discuss the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion. They had views.Hosted by Nehal Bhuta, Professor of International Law at the University of Edinburgh and featuring Professor Ardi Imseis, Queen’s University, Dr Nimer Sultany, SOAS, and former PLO negotiation team member and lawyer, Diana Buttu.

In this episode, Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic and Philippa Webb are joined by Yuval Shany, and discuss the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The hosts and their guest explore the Court’s reasoning on how violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territories rendered unlawful Israel’s continued presence there. They also examine various ambiguities in the Court’s opinion and what drove them, on matters such as apartheid in the territories and the occupation of Gaza.

We need to talk about hunger. After seven decades of a decline in mass death from starvation, starvation is now a reality for millions of people. And most of this starvation is not due to natural disasters but man-made. In this episode of EJIL: The Podcast, EJIL Editor in Chief Sarah Nouwen speaks with Michael Fakhri, the UN Rapporteur on the Right to Food and professor at the University of Oregon, and Alex de Waal, a leading thinker on humanitarian issues and Executive Director of the World Peace Foundation. Together, they discuss the strength and weaknesses of various areas of international law and, especially, how that law can be used politically to address famine and starvation. They go from human rights to international economic law, from individuals to corporations, from the World Food Programme to the world humanitarian system, from Gaza to Sudan and from food as a weapon of war to the slow violence committed by the international food system.

What is the Alpha and Omega of Climate Control discourse? Surely it is Intergenerational responsibility. Our responsibility towards future generations. Yet, in January 2023 EJIL published Against Future Generations, by Stephen Humphreys, which challenges this comfort zone. Needless to say, the article created a climatic disruption. Listen to the Podcast, moderated by Editor in Chief Joseph Weiler, in which Humphreys engages with three of his critics, Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Ayan Garg and Shubhangi Agarwalla (For their written reply, see here).

Does the decision of the International Court of Justice with respect to Gaza illustrate the influence of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL)? Has TWAIL perhaps become ‘mainstream’? And how germane are some of the critiques that have been levelled against TWAIL? In this 24th episode of EJIL:The Podcast!, Antony Anghie, one of TWAIL's founders, discusses the rise and critiques of Third World Approaches to International Law with the authors of three Afterwords to his already classic EJIL Foreword ‘Rethinking International Law: A TWAIL Retrospective’: Andreas von Arnauld, Arnulf Becker Lorca and Ratna Kapur. Podcast host is EJIL Editor in Chief Sarah Nouwen.

In this episode, Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic and Philippa Webb, joined by Mike Becker, discuss the oral hearings before the International Court of Justice on provisional measures in the South Africa v. Israel case, in which it is alleged that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. How did the hearings go, what will the Court do now, and what will it eventually do on the merits? The discussion then moves to exploring recent trends in international litigation, and concludes by briefly examining the recent strikes by the US and UK on the Houthis in Yemen.

International organizations are often expected to solve problems that states cannot or do not solve. But how should we understand international organizations? Marking the year-long symposium ‘Hidden Gems in International Organizations Law’ in the European Journal of International Law, this podcast discusses how international organizations have been theorized by various scholars and practitioners. Special attention is paid to international organization practitioner SKB Asante and scholar Rao Geping. Hosted by EJIL Editor in Chief Sarah Nouwen, the discussants are Kehinde Olaoye, Yifeng Chen and Jan Klabbers.

The International Criminal Court has been frequently accused of a bias against Africa in that all its defendants thus far have been from Africa. But might the ICC suffer from another bias that disadvantages Africa? EJIL editor-in-chief Sarah Nouwen discusses with Stewart Manley and Pardis M. Tehrani who, together with Rajah Rasiah, have authored the EJIL article ‘The (Non-)Use of African Law by the International Criminal Court’ (free access!).

Much of international law is about ordering. But in her article in issue 33(3) of the European Journal of International Law, Michelle Staggs Kelsall calls for the disordering of international law. This is not an appeal to create more chaos in the world – there seems to be plenty of it. It is an invitation to open up new ways of thinking about and in international law. Tune in to her discussion with Luis Eslava, Andrea Bianchi and podcast host Sarah Nouwen, to learn … and to unlearn.

In this episode Marko Milanovic, Dapo Akande and Philippa Webb are joined by Oona Hathaway (Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School) to discuss big legal issues arising from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one year on, including the arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin, the application of international humanitarian law in the conflict, and problems regarding reparation and immunities of frozen Russian assets.

In this episode Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic and Philippa Webb are joined by Philippe Sands and Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh. They reflect on the role and significance of advisory opinions by international courts, particularly in the context of various current efforts to litigate legal issues regarding climate change in such advisory proceedings in several different courts. They also discuss previous high-profile advisory proceedings before the ICJ, including the Nuclear Weapons, Wall and Kosovo cases, focusing on the different types of advisory cases, their legal and political purposes, the litigations strategies of the parties and the need to formulate questions tailored to the particular moment and the particular forum.

What conduct occurring where are states allowed to regulate? The international law on jurisdiction provides part of the answer. But international lawyers use different images when conceptualising the geographical reach of states' jurisdiction to prescribe their laws. In this podcast, the two contenders in a debate in issue 33(2) of the European Journal of International Law engage with each other’s images and their ensuing conclusions as to the international law of jurisdiction. Nico Krisch posits that the traditional image is inappropriate, that in practice jurisdiction - at least when it relates to global markets - has come "unbound" and that this unbound jurisdiction has allowed economically powerful states to exercise global governance in a hierarchical fashion, triggering fresh demands for public accountability. Roger O’Keefe replies that this supposedly traditional image was never his understanding, argues that the current law of jurisdiction is fit for purpose and cautions against blaming this law for the perpetuation of the world’s economic inequalities. EJIL Editor in Chief Sarah Nouwen hosts the debate.

In the third episode of ‘Reckonings with Europe: Pasts and Present’, James Lowry and Meredith Terretta take up the object of archives: how law conceptualizes the archives of states; the ‘displaced’, ‘disputed’ or ‘migrated’ archives left when empires and states are reconstituted; and what state archives can and cannot tell us.Works mentioned, in order of mention:James Lowry (ed), Displaced Archives (Routledge, 2017) James Lowry (ed), Disputed Archival Heritage (forthcoming), esp chapter by J J Ghaddar, ‘Provenance in Place: Crafting the Vienna Convention for Global Decolonization and Archival Repatriation’.Meredith Terretta, Claimants, Advocates and Disrupters in Africa’s Internationally Supervised Territories (forthcoming; for a sense of work to date on anticolonial advocate lawyering see ‘Claiming Land, Claiming Rights in Africa’s Internationally Supervised Territories’ in Steven L.B. Jensen and Charles Walton (eds), Social Rights and the Politics of Obligation in History (CUP, 2022) 264-286 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009008686.014; ‘Anti-Colonial Lawyering, Postwar Human Rights, and Decolonization across Imperial Boundaries in Africa’. Canadian Journal of History 52(3), 448-478 (2017)).James Lowry, ‘Radical empathy, the imaginary and affect in (post)colonial records: how to break out of international stalemates on displaced archives’. Archival Science 19, 185–203 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09305-z(For concise background on the ‘migrated archives’, see James Lowry & Mandy Banton / Association of Commonwealth Archivists and Records Managers position paper).Umut Özsu, ‘Determining New Selves: Mohammed Bedjaoui on Algeria, Western Sahara, and Post-Classical International Law’ in Jochen von Bernstorff and Philipp Dann (eds), The Battle for International Law: South–North Perspectives on the Decolonization Era (OUP, 2019) DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198849636.003.0016.Stanley

This episode accompanies the launching of a new rubric in the European Journal of International Law – Legal/Illegal. The first installment of Legal/Illegal, which appears in issue 32(4), focuses on the question whether the use of force by a state to recover a territory that has been occupied for many years may be considered a lawful act of self-defence. In the Podcast, Michal Saliternik interviews the authors of this section: Tom Ruys and Felipe Rodriguez Silvestre on the illegal side, and Dapo Akande and Antonios Tzanakopoulos on the legal side. Beginning with the second Nagorno-Karabakh war, passing through the conflicts over the Falkland Islands, the Golan Heights, Northern Cyprus, and the Chagos Islands, and concluding with the Russian occupation of Ukrainian territories, they discuss the compatibility of forcible recovery of an occupied territory with the self-defence immediacy and necessity requirements as well as with the obligation to settle territorial disputes through peaceful means. They also discuss questions of justice and fairness, both towards the conflicting states and towards the inhabitants of the occupied territory.

In this episode Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic and Philippa Webb, joined by Rebecca Barber and Mike Becker, examine various aspects of Russia’s war on Ukraine. The discussion begins with an evaluation of Russia’s legal justification for invading Ukraine, moving to an analysis of the responses to Russia’s aggression by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. We then turn to the proceedings brought by Ukraine against Russia before the International Court of Justice pursuant to the Genocide Convention, the investigation initiated by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the commission of inquiry created by the Human Rights Council, and the pros and cons of an initiative to set up a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression. 

In this second instalment of the 'Reckonings with Europe: Pasts and Present' series, Evelien Campfens, Chika Okeke-Agulu and Dan Hicks reflect on calls for return of cultural artefacts looted under European empire. How does (international) law respond to these calls? Does law even matter—and if so which kind? Who resists return, and why? And what might return mean today?Select texts and reports discussed:Felwine Sarr & Bénédicte Savoy, 'The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethics' (French original) (2018)Association of Art Museum Directors, 'Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums' (2002)Dan Hicks, The Brutish Museum: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution (2020)Evelien Campfens, https://www.boomdenhaag.nl/isbn/9789462362505 (Cross-Border Claims to Cultural Heritage: Property or Heritage?) (2021)

In this episode Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic and Philippa Webb discuss the legal issues that arise from targeted killings conducted by states outside their territory. They begin with a discussion of the recent blockbuster judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case concerning the killing in London in 2006 of the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko. They talk about how the Court dealt with the attribution of the killing to Russia and then explore the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties obligations - a question on which many courts and treaty bodies have given inconsistent answers. The podcast then moves on to the legal issues that would arise if the courts of the territorial state were to seek to exercise jurisdiction over the individuals accused of committing the killing or over the state that sent them. Would those individuals be entitled to the immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction which those who act on behalf of a state are normally entitled to? If not, why not and how does the ongoing work of International Law Commission on immunity deal with this issue?

In this episode of the podcast, Joseph Weiler is joined by Helene Ruiz-Fabri, Photini Pazartzis and Marko Milanovic, to discuss the EJIL’s sister institution, the European Society of International Law (ESIL) – its foundation, mission, governance, and plans for the future, including the forthcoming annual conference in Stockholm.

Whatever happened to International Law & Democracy? Accompanying the Symposium on that question in EJIL issue 32(1), this podcast contains a duel between anti-anti-international-law& democracy scholar Akbar Rasulov and anti-international law & democracy scholar Brad Roth. Hosted by EJIL Editor in Chief Sarah Nouwen, they disagree on the curious fate of international law & democracy, on the politics of form versus the politics of substance and the role of the international lawyer.

Which author of a legal monograph has not had that frustrating feeling -- Why is my book not getting reviewed (and his or her book is...!)? And yet, in one of the many exquisite paradoxes of academic life, all Book Review editors of legal journals will attest to the difficulty of getting colleagues to accept to do a book review. 'I have to read that book carefully (i.e. going beyond the index and checking if I am cited and whether the engagement with my work is ok) and then write a couple of pages which count for nothing in the current lamentable state of quantitative academic appointments and promotions? Thank you but no thank you is the usual reply. We want our books reviewed but we don't like reviewing books. Or as readers of legal book reviews -- have you ever had the frustrating feeling of 'I want to read about the book and this reviewer is just using it to inflict on us his own thoughts and ideas'. Or the opposite -- if I want to read a description of the book I can go to the publisher's website (or the author's homepage...). Why is this review so bland and lacking in critical bite? These are just some of the issues that Cait Storr, Fuad Zarbiyev, EJIL book review editor Christian Tams and EJIL editors in Chief Sarah Nouwen and Joseph Weiler discuss in this EJIL Live! The podcast accompanies issue 31.4 which contains a 'Bumper' Book Review section. At the end of the podcast, plans for another EJIL innovation are revealed…

In this new series, 'Reckonings with Europe: Pasts and Present', Surabhi Ranganathan and Megan Donaldson host conversations about enduring legacies of empire, capitalism, and racism in international law and the legal academy. Joined by Matthew Smith, Mezna Qato, and Rahul Rao, they open the series with a discussion about statues, less tangible legacies woven into institutions, and the place of law in struggles about pasts and futures.

In this podcast, EJIL editor Sarah Nouwen interviews Laurence Helfer and Erik Voeten about their article “Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?”, published in EJIL issue 31(3). What does it mean to “walk back human rights”? One day one has a human right and the next day no longer? And how does one assess whether human rights are being walked back? But also: how does one keep a single voice in a co-authored text?

In this episode Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, Sarah Nouwen and Philippa Webb analyse the Internal Market Bill currently pending before the UK Parliament, which the UK government’s own legal officers admit breaches international law by reneging on parts of the Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union and the Northern Ireland Protocol thereto that the UK had freely entered into less than a year ago. The team discuss why the UK government has put this Bill forward, how it is fairly unique for a state to admit to breaking international law before actually doing so, and why no international legal argument would work to justify this course of action. The team also discuss whether the concept of the rule of law should be bifurcated between the domestic and the international spheres, and what the role of governmental legal advisors should be in such situations.

The International Criminal Court has for a long time been criticised for exclusively focusing on Africa, as opposed to investigating situations in which powerful western states are heavily involved or have strong interests. In the first part of this podcast Kamari Clarke joins Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, Sarah Nouwen and Philippa Webb to discuss whether black lives matter before the ICC and whether it can deal with structural injustice. The second part of the podcast discusses some of the political and legal challenges that have arisen when the Court goes after nationals of states not party to its Statute. The focus is on the recent US sanctions against the Court in response to the investigation into the situation in Afghanistan and whether the ICC is able to determine the territorial boundaries of Palestine.

With cyberattacks against the health care sector on the rise, this episode focuses on international law and cyber operations, especially in the context of the fight against COVID-19. For this discussion, Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, & Sarah Nouwen are joined by Harriet Moynihan (Chatham House), and Tilman Rodenhäuser (International Committee of the Red Cross). They consider whether international law imposes obligations on states to refrain from such attacks having effect in other states. They also examine the obligations, under international human rights law and other bodies of law, to take positive action to prevent such attacks by non-state actors.

Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, Sarah Nouwen and Philippa Webb are joined by Gian Luca Burci, former Legal Counsel of the World Health Organization, to discuss international health law and pandemics. They discuss the obligations arising under the WHO's International Health Regulations, as well as various attempts to hold states and organizations (China, the US, the WHO) accountable in a variety of domestic and international courts.Moving from the virus to immunity, the final segment discusses a recent English case that raises a difficult tension between the obligations to protect human rights and to accord diplomatic immunity. 

Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, Sarah Nouwen and Philippa Webb discuss the compatibility with international human rights law of the measures taken by states in the fight against the corona virus. Do states have a duty to cooperate in tackling the virus? Should they derogate from rights provided for in human rights treaties or are those rights flexible enough to permit the measures being taken? What measures can be taken to combat misinformation relating to the virus? They end with one of the international law issues of the day not receiving attention because of the virus - the indictment by the United States of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.