Avsnitt
-
Oleksandra Matviichuk is one of the leading lawyers and human rights advocates pushing for accountability for grave crimes committed during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In 2007, Oleksandra founded the Center for Civil Liberties, which she still leads. In 2022, it became the first Ukrainian organization to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The center was awarded the prize that year alongside human rights advocate Ales Bialiatski from Belarus, and the Russian human rights organization Memorial.
The Center for Civil Liberties aims to advance human rights and democracy in Ukraine and the broader Europe-Eurasia region. It defends individual rights, develops legislative changes, conducts public oversight over law enforcement agencies and the judiciary, and offers educational activities for young people.
How does the Center for Civil Liberties promote accountability? And what does Oleksandra see as the key issues and trends to watch as this full-scale war nears its third-year mark in February?
Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger, recently sat down with Oleksandra to discuss her work. Here is their conversation.
Show Notes:
Oleksandra Matviichuk (@avalaina) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Oleksandra’s March 2023 Just Security article (with Natalia Arno and Jasmine D. Cameron) “Russia’s Forcible Transfers of Ukrainian Civilians: How Civil Society Aids Accountability and Justice” (also available in Ukrainian)Oona A. Hathaway’s Just Security article (with Madeline Babin and Isabel Gensler) “New Report Documents Russia’s Systematic Program of Coerced Adoption and Fostering of Ukraine’s Children”Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War coverageJust Security’s International Criminal Court coverageJust Security’s International Law coverageNobel Peace Prize 2022 announcement and Oleksandra’s websiteMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
Among the many war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine are large-scale efforts to deport Ukrainian children to Russia. Thousands of children have already been taken to Russian camps and facilities, leading the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for two senior Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, in March 2023.
Despite the arrest warrants, the deportations have continued. A new report from the Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab identified 314 individual Ukrainian children that Russian officials transferred from Ukraine to Russia for coerced adoption and fostering, acts that likely constitute grave violations of international law.
What are the report’s key findings? And how might they contribute to efforts toward accountability, including potential new criminal charges against Russian officials?
Joining the show to discuss the report are Oona Hathaway and Nathaniel Raymond.
Oona is a Professor at Yale Law School and an Executive Editor at Just Security. Nathaniel is the Executive Director of the Humanitarian Research Lab and a Lecturer in the Department of the Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases at the Yale School of Public Health.
Show Notes:
Nathaniel Raymond (@nattyray11)Oona A. Hathaway (@oonahathaway)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Oona’s Just Security article (with Madeline Babin and Isabel Gensler) “New Report Documents Russia’s Systematic Program of Coerced Adoption and Fostering of Ukraine’s Children”Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War coverageJust Security’s International Criminal Court coverageJust Security’s International Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
On November 22, the United Nations General Assembly’s legal arm, the Sixth Committee, adopted a resolution paving the way for negotiations on a first-ever treaty on preventing and punishing crimes against humanity. The resolution comes after years of impasse and after Russia and a handful of other countries dropped amendments that could have derailed the process at the last-minute.
Crimes against humanity are those committed as part of a large-scale attack on civilians and include acts such as murder, rape, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, sexual slavery, torture and deportation. To be considered a crime against humanity, a violation doesn’t necessarily have to occur during an active war. And while crimes against humanity are covered by the International Criminal Court, nearly 70 countries are not members of the Court, which creates a gap in fully prosecuting these crimes in countries from Sudan to Syria to Myanmar.
What can we expect next as States prepare for negotiations, and how might a future crimes against humanity treaty close the impunity gap?
Joining the show to unpack the developments on the crimes against humanity treaty are Akila Radhakrishnan and Leila Sadat.
Akila is an international human rights lawyer and gender-justice expert, who currently serves as the Strategic Legal Advisor for Gender Justice for the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project. Leila is the James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law and longtime Director of the Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute at Washington University School of Law.
Show Notes:
Akila Radhakrishnan (@akila_rad)Leila Nadya Sadat (@leilasadat1)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security’s Proposed Crimes Against Humanity Treaty coverageJust Security’s International Law coverageJust Security’s International Criminal Court coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
Earlier this fall, three Pacific Island States – Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa – formally proposed adding ecocide as a crime that can be heard and punished by the International Criminal Court, which can currently try individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression.
Any change to the ICC’s Rome Statute, particularly adding a new international crime, would require a massive level of diplomatic coordination and negotiation. But the future crime might hold individuals criminally accountable for severe environmental damage, such as massive oil or chemical spills or the destruction of rainforests.
In the meantime, what does the ecocide proposal mean in practice? How might it potentially impact our understanding of ongoing destruction of the environment and the role of international criminal law?
Joining the show to unpack the ecocide proposal are Naima Fifita, Rebecca Hamilton, and Kate Mackintosh.
Naima is a lawyer from Tuvalu. She is the Executive Director of the Institute for Climate and Peace. Bec is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University. Kate is Executive Director of the UCLA Law Promise Institute Europe, and Deputy Co-Chair of the Independent Expert Panel on the Legal Definition of Ecocide.
Show Notes:
Naima FifitaRebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton) Kate Mackintosh (@Katemackintosh2)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security’s expert round up article “Why Criminalize Ecocide? Experts Weigh In” Just Security’s Climate Change coverageJust Security’s International Law coverageJust Security’s International Criminal Court coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
With the U.S. presidential election less than a week away, anxiety is high, both across the country and around the world. Many fear the rise of populism and the erosion of democratic norms. In over two centuries, the United States has had many presidents who pushed on the door of anti-democratic power, but it has also had people who pushed back.
Ahead of the election, what lessons can we learn by looking to the past?
Brown University political scientist Corey Brettschneider is one of the leading thinkers on presidential power. His recent book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It examines how John Adams, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon abused their power, and how citizens like Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, and Daniel Ellsberg resisted and offered a more democratic understanding of the Constitution.
Just Security Senior Fellow Tom Joscelyn sat down with Brettschneider to discuss the book and the lessons it offers for the election, the state of American democracy, and beyond.
Here is Tom’s conversation with Corey Brettschneider.
Corey Brettschneider (@BrettschneiderC)Tom Joscelyn (@thomasjoscelyn) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Corey’s book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It published by W. W. Norton & CompanyJust Security’s “Democracy Backsliding” seriesJust Security’s 2024 Presidential Election coverageJust Security’s Democracy coverageJust Security’s Domestic Extremism coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)
Show Notes: -
For five years, Christopher Smith, a man with intellectual disabilities, was forced to work 100 hours per week at a South Carolina restaurant without pay. Smith faced verbal and physical abuse at the hands of his employer. Around the world, persons with disabilities like Smith face many modern forms of enslavement, from forced labor and begging to sexual exploitation and imprisonment by caregivers.
While some of these crimes are prosecuted through national court systems, international criminal law can also play an important role in promoting accountability for grave crimes, including the crime of the slave trade. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is formulating a new Slave Crimes Policy, which he hopes will be “survivor-centred, trauma-informed and gender-competent.”
How can international law, and the new policy, best account for the unique needs and challenges persons with disabilities face regarding slavery crimes?
Joining the show to unpack how slavery crimes impact persons with disabilities and what the international community can do in response are Janet Lord and Michael Ashley Stein.
Janet is the Executive Director of the University of Baltimore School of Law’s Center for International and Comparative Law and a senior research fellow at the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Michael is the co-founder and Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School.
Show Notes:
Janet E. LordMichael Ashley SteinParas Shah (@pshah518) Janet, Michael, Pace Schwarz, Matthew “Hezzy” Smith, Alex Green, and Rosemary Kayess’ Just Security article “Time for the International Criminal Court to Recognize Persons with Disabilities and the Slave Trade” Just Security’s Disability Rights coverageJust Security’s International Criminal Court (ICC) coverageJust Security’s International Law coverageHarvard Law School Project on Disability (HPOD) Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
During this year’s election season in Mexico, propagandists leveraged a new mass-broadcasting feature on WhatsApp, called “channels,” to impersonate reputable political news outlets and pump out misleading information. Thousands of miles away, Telegram users in Hungary leveraged the app’s forwarding bot against LGBTQ+ and pro-democracy civil society organizations, portraying them as “Western-controlled” ahead of European Union elections.
Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Viber have become highly influential tools for manipulating and misleading voters around the world.
In fact, a new report, “Covert Campaigns: Safeguarding Encrypted Messaging Platforms from Voter Manipulation” examines how political propagandists have refined a digital “broadcasting toolkit.” The toolkit is a set of tactics for reaching large swaths of voters directly on their phones using narratives tailored to resonate with their specific interests and viewpoints.
What are some of the most common tactics in the “broadcasting toolkit”? How can users and messaging platforms respond to the spread of propaganda and disinformation?
Joining the show to discuss the report’s key findings are two of its authors, Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat and Inga Trauthig.
Mariana is a policy advisor on technology and law at the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. Inga is the head of research for the Propaganda Research Lab at the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin.
Show Notes:
Mariana Olaizola RosenblatInga TrauthigParas Shah (@pshah518) Mariana, Inga, and Samuel C. Woolley's Just Security article “Political Propaganda Runs Wild on Messaging Apps – Platform Owners Can Help Counter It” Just Security’s Disinformation and Misinformation coverage Just Security’s Technology coverageJust Security’s Elections coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
The conflict in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023, primarily involves the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) under General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti. While the fighting began in the country’s capital, Khartoum, it has since spread to other regions, including Darfur.
The conflict has resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries, with estimates of 15,000 killed and more than 20,000 injured. The humanitarian crisis is dire, with millions facing severe food shortages. Around 25 million people are in need of assistance, 8.1 million are internally displaced, and 2.9 million people have crossed the border since April 2023. Recent discussions at the United Nations General Assembly highlighted the urgent need for international intervention and support.
Meanwhile, the most recent clashes in Khartoum suggest a possible shift in the balance of power, as both sides continue to vie for control amid an increasingly fragmented landscape.
Co-hosting this episode is Just Security Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf. Matiangai is the Nathan Patz Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law.
Joining the show to discuss the conflict’s origins and its impact, and the international community’s response are Laura Beny, Nisrin Elamin, and Hamid Khalafallah.
Laura is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, Nisrin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto, and Hamid is a Researcher at the University of Manchester.
Show Notes:
Laura Nyantung BenyNisrin Elamin (@minlayla77)Hamid Khalafallah (@HamidMurtada)Matiangai V.S. Sirleaf (@matiangai)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security’s Sudan coverageLaura and Sondra Hale's book "Sudan's Killing Fields: Political Viilence and Fragmentation" Nisrin's article with Sara Abbas, Rabab Elnaiem, and Abdelraouf Omer "In Sudan, the People’s Revolution Versus the Elite’s Counterrevolution" Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
More than 130 world leaders just completed a week of meetings in New York for the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly. This high-level week, as it’s called, began with States adopting U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' "Pact for the Future,” a key document generated as part of the "Summit of the Future."
The goal of the Summit, and the pact, is to recharge the idea of global cooperation, which is facing severe strain amid competition between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Russia and China and their allies on the other. The U.N. meetings also occurred as conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan, and Myanmar, to name just a few, are killing tens of thousands of people and displacing millions.
What were the key outcomes from the Summit of the Future and how might it shape future global diplomacy? And how can the U.N. more broadly remain relevant amid such geopolitical tensions?
Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger.
Joining the show to assess the high-level week and the Summit of the Future is Richard Ponzio.
Richard is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Stimson Center’s program on Global Governance, Justice & Security.
Show Notes:
Richard Ponzio (@RichardPonzio)Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Richard's Just Security article "The UN's New 'Pact for the Future': A Milestone That Can Set a Path for Change"Just Security’s UNGA 79 coverage including expert analysis and resourcesJust Security’s U.N. Security Council coverageJust Security’s Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas war, and Sudan confect coverage Just Security’s Summit of the Future coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
Earlier this month, a SpaceX mission called Polaris Dawn launched four civilians into outer space. The crew completed the first ever “commercial spacewalk” while floating more than 800 miles above the Earth’s surface. But private companies aren’t the only ones interested in exploring the stars. Militaries are increasingly using space for a comparative advantage, from Russia’s plans to place a nuclear weapon into orbit to China’s development of anti-satellite weapons for the final frontier.
And while these “new space races” are full of emerging technology, the law that governs outer space is decades old and incomplete. Much of it was developed in the 1960s and 70s. It remains murky and the legal guardrails, where they exist, are largely untested.
Recently, experts from academia, industry, and government have published the Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and Operations. The Manual is the first comprehensive and detailed articulation of how international law applies to military operations in outer space.
What motivated the project of drafting the Manual, and how was it developed? How might it benefit the future development of space law and where do gaps remain?
Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman.
Joining the show to discuss the Woomera Manual are two of its editors, Jack Beard and David Koplow. Jack is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Space, Cyber, and National Security Law Program at the University of Nebraska College of Law. David is the Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center where he specializes in public international law and national security law.
Show Notes:
Jack M. BeardDavid A. KoplowTess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Paras Shah (@pshah518)David’s Just Security article “In the Woomera Manual, International Law Meets Military Space Activities” The Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and OperationsJust Security’s Space coverageJust Security’s International Law coverageJust Security’s Law of Armed Conflict coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
Next week, world leaders from nearly 150 nations will meet in New York for the annual high-level week during the United Nations General Assembly’s new session. Among the many topics for discussion will be the ongoing wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan, efforts to regulate artificial intelligence and get sustainable development back on track, and the role of the U.N. Security Council in international peace and security.
The formal and informal meetings of the week will play out as many of the U.N.’s agencies and institutions – from the Security Council to the International Court of Justice – are under stress and scrutiny. What are the key trends to watch for? How might the upcoming U.S. presidential election shape the discussions and debate?
Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger.
Joining the show to unpack the key themes around this year’s U.N. General Assembly is Richard Gowan. Richard is the U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an organization providing independent analysis and advice on how to prevent, resolve or better manage conflict.
Show Notes:
Richard Gowan (@RichardGowan1) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Richard’s Just Security article “Guide to the Formal and Informal Agendas at the 2024 UN General Assembly Summit”Just Security’s UNGA 79 coverage including expert analysis and resourcesJust Security’s U.N. Security Council coverageJust Security’s Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas war, and Sudan confect coverage Just Security’s Summit of the Future coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
From gathering and analyzing information to battlefield operations, States are integrating AI into a range of military and intelligence operations. Gaza and Ukraine are battle labs for this new technology. But many questions remain about whether, and how, such advances should be regulated.
As political and military leaders, industry, academics, and civil society confront a rapidly changing world, how should they approach the role of AI in the military? This week, more than two thousand experts from over 90 countries gathered in Seoul, South Korea, for the second global summit on Responsible AI in the Military Domain (REAIM). The Summit focused on three themes: understanding the implications of AI on international peace and security; implementing responsible application of AI in the military domain; and envisioning the future governance of AI in the military domain.
This is the Just Security Podcast. I’m your host, Paras Shah.
Just Security Senior Fellow Brianna Rosen and Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman were among the participants at the REAIM Summit, chairing and speaking on several breakout sessions. Today, Brianna joins the show to share her key takeaways from the Summit, including on how it inform future efforts to build consensus and strengthen AI governance in the military domain.
Show Notes:
Brianna Rosen (@rosen_br)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Tobias Vestner and Simon Cleobury’s Just Security article “Putting the Second REAIM Summit into Context”Just Security’s Artificial Intelligence coverageJust Security’s Diplomacy coverageJust Security’s Military coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
The situation in Israel and Palestine raises some of the most complex and contested issues in international law. In the past few years, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and a U.N.-backed Independent Commission of Inquiry have all addressed various legal dimensions of the conflict, including the status of Israel’s long-standing occupation of the Palestinian Territories and its conduct of hostilities in the Gaza Strip.
Just how have those bodies ruled? What have they chosen to condemn as violations of community norms and what conduct has been silenced or omitted? And what does all of this mean in practice, both as a matter of international law, for third-party States, and for the people on the ground?
Joining the show to unpack how international courts and institutions have addressed the situation in Palestine are Shahd Hammouri, Ardi Imseis, and Victor Kattan.
Shahd is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Kent Law School, Ardi is an Associate Professor and the Academic Director of the International Law Programs at Queen’s University Law School, and Victor is an Assistant Professor in Public International Law at the University of Nottingham School of Law.
Co-hosting this episode is Just Security Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf. Matiangai is the Nathan Patz Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.Show Notes:
Shahd Hammouri (@shahdhm)Ardi Imseis (@ArdiImseis)Victor Kattan (@VictorKattan)Matiangai V.S. Sirleaf (@matiangai)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Discussion timestamps: 1:49 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion “Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in The Occupied Palestinian Territory”43:10 International Court of Justice South Africa v. Israel case1:05 Independent Commission of Inquiry 1:38 International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s Request for Arrest WarrantsMatiangai’s Just Security article “We Charge Geocide: Redux” Just Security’s Israel and Palestine coverageJust Security’s International Court of Justice coverageJust Security’s International Criminal Court coverage Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
From the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, political violence in the United States is on the minds of many around the country and around the world. As the 2024 election draws closer, now is a useful moment to reflect on the threats of political violence, to consider how other nations have dealt with similar risks, and to evaluate where government and civil institutions can improve.
Joining the show to discuss the risks of political violence in the United States and what can be done to address them is Rachel Kleinfeld. Rachel is a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where she focuses on issues of conflict, governance, development, and security.
Show Notes:
Rachel Kleinfeld (@RachelKleinfeld)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Rachel’s Just Security article “Political Violence in the United States Is Rising – and It Might Be Up to Americans to Say ‘Enough!’”Just Security’s Democracy coverageJust Security’s Political Violence coverageJust Security’s Domestic Extremism coverageJust Security’s Rule of Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
At their core, the laws of war seek to preserve humanity in the most difficult conditions. As Dr. Cordula Droege, the chief legal officer and head of the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (or ICRC) recently wrote for Just Security, “Understood in simplest terms, the law of armed conflict acknowledges that both sides will inevitably kill, injure, detain, and destroy, but it prohibits them from dehumanizing their adversary.”
She notes that “Altogether, IHL contains hundreds of rules that protect life, health, and human dignity. It is modest and imperfect – it seeks only to guarantee a modicum of humanity in situations where our humanity has already been largely compromised.”
But across the world – from Gaza to Myanmar to Ukraine to Sudan – IHL is facing a moment of profound strain. Civilians are targeted. Cities are leveled. And, as Droege writes, “All too often today, the protective purpose of IHL is set aside and the rules are literally turned on their head: instead of being interpreted to protect civilians, the absence of clear violations are invoked to justify a level of death, injury and destruction that is precisely what IHL intended to avoid.”
Are the laws of war inadequate? Why are some States choosing not to comply? What exactly is the problem with IHL?
Dr. Droege join the show to discuss her article, “War and What We Make of the Law” with Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman, and Just Security Legal Editor and Podcast Host and Executive Producer, Paras Shah.
Show Notes:
Cordula Droege (@CDroegeICRC) Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Cordula’s Just Security article “War and What We Make of the Law”Mary Wareham’s Just Security article “Lithuania Leaving Cluster Munition Ban Undermines Agreement, Threatens Crucial Norms” Just Security’s International Humanitarian Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
August this year marks 10 years since the shocking execution of American freelance journalist James Foley at the hands of ISIS amid the war in Syria in 2014. His videotaped decapitation was the first of a spree of ISIS beheadings, including several Americans, which ISIS often used as recruitment propaganda. Jim’s killing, almost two years after he had been captured, stunned the world. A month later, ISIS did the same to another American journalist, Time Magazine contributor Steven Joel Sotloff. A month later, an American aid worker, Peter Kassig, was killed in the same way. Another American aid worker, Kayla Mueller, was killed in 2015 while being held captive by ISIS.
Jim’s mother, Diane Foley, has pushed through the horror of those years by establishing the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation in her son’s memory and pressing the U.S. government persistently over a decade to reform its approach to cases of American hostages held abroad. At the time, its policy, as she explains in a recent article published by Just Security, consisted of little more than a slogan: “The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.”
Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger.
On this episode, we’re privileged to have Jim Foley’s mother, Diane Foley, and Luke Hartig, a member of Just Security’s editorial board, who first met Diane when he was a senior director at the National Security Council working on hostage policy and she was advocating for changes in hostage policy. He serves on the Foley Foundation’s advisory board.
Diane has been a driving force in reforming U.S. policy and practices on the handling of American hostages held abroad. Part of that campaign has been an annual research report that the foundation produces, entitled Bringing Americans Home. It collects and analyzes evidence-based data on hostages currently held in 16 countries to inform the American public, government officials, and lawmakers about how the U.S. government is doing and what else is needed to secure the release of U.S. hostages abroad and reduce the risks of capture in the first place. The latest edition was just released.
Show Notes:
Diane M. Foley (@FoleyDi) Luke Hartig (@LukeHartig) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Diane’s Just Security article “Since James Foley’s Death, a `Moral Awakening’ in America on Hostages Held Abroad”James W. Foley Legacy FoundationJust Security's Hostages coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
In November 2021, a teenager in rural Texas downloaded the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and quickly became obsessed. He began to research weapons from the game, including a military-grade assault rifle. The company that manufactures the weapon used Instagram to market it.
The teenager spent hours on Instagram, using 20 different accounts to browse the app. He learned more about the gun, and saved every dollar he could to pre-order it. 23 minutes after he turned 18 years old, he purchased the weapon. A few days later, on May 24, 2022, the teenager walked into Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and used the gun to kill 19 fourth-graders and two teachers.
Now, two years after the massacre, the families of those killed are suing Instagram and Activision Blizzard, the company that publishes Call of Duty. The novel lawsuit faces many legal hurdles – among them is Section 230, a federal law which significantly shields social media companies from liability for third-party content posted on their platforms.
How might this long shot lawsuit impact who can be held responsible for mass shootings? And what are its potential implications for Silicon Valley in other contexts?
Joining the show to discuss the case and its potential impact on legal efforts to hold social media companies liable through the court system is Paul Barrett.
Paul is the deputy director and senior research scholar at the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.
Show Notes:
Paul M. Barrett (@AuthorPMBarrett) Paras Shah (@pshah518)Paul’s Just Security article “Can Families of Mass Shooting Victims Hold Social Media Companies Responsible for Violence?” Just Security’s Section 230 coverageJust Security’s Big Tech coverageJust Security’s Domestic Extremism coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
This week, leaders from across the Euro-Atlantic region met in Washington, D.C., for the annual NATO Summit. The security pact turned 75 this year, and its 32 members are facing challenges on multiple fronts, from Russia’s continuing bombardment of Ukraine, now in its third year, to the growing relationship between Russia and China and NATO member Hungary’s outreach to both. And that’s not to mention issues such as the impacts of technology, especially artificial intelligence, and questions of how many allies are reaching the intended threshold for their own defense spending of at least 2% of GDP.
And all of this comes amid the uncertainty of a looming U.S. election in which former President Donald Trump has signaled he would distance Washington’s support for the alliance, and amid President Joe Biden’s struggles to persuade supporters that he still has the physical and mental stamina – at age 81 – to serve another term.
What are the key takeaways from the Summit and how might it influence security concerns on both sides of the Atlantic?
Co-hosting today is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger, and joining the show to discuss this year’s NATO summit and unpack its implications is Ambassador Daniel Fried.
During his 40 years in the Foreign Service, Ambassador Fried played a central role in implementing U.S. policy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. In several senior roles, including as Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Ambassador Fried helped craft the policy of NATO enlargement to Central European countries and NATO-Russia relations. Earlier, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. He is currently the Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, which co-hosted the annual NATO Public Forum with other think tanks on the sidelines of the summit.
Show Notes:
Ambassador Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Ambassador Fried’s Just Security article “At the NATO Summit, Strategy and Politics in Play” Just Security’s NATO coverageJust Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. United States, finding that former presidents have “absolute immunity” for certain “official acts” taken while in office. The decision is a potentially sweeping expansion of presidential power and raises many questions, such as how to separate “official” and “unofficial” conduct in practice, and how it will impact the prosecutions against former President Donald Trump.
What are the opinion’s key takeaways? How might Special Counsel Jack Smith respond to the decision?
Joining the show to unpack the Court’s landmark ruling, and what it means for presidential power and democracy, are leading legal experts Marty Lederman, Mary McCord, and Steve Vladeck. Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, co-hosted the discussion.
Marty previously served in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel and is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Mary is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and is a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She previously had a long career at the Department of Justice, as a federal prosecutor and later in leadership of the National Security Division. Steve is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and he covers the Supreme Court both for CNN and through his Substack newsletter, “One First.” Marty, Mary, and Steve are all Editors at Just Security.
Show Notes:
Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman)Mary B. McCordSteve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck)Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Just Security’s Trump Trials coverageJust Security’s Supreme Court coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) -
On June 24, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two top Russian officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Prosecutors allege that Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s former defense minister, and Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, directed missile strikes against Ukraine’s power plants and electrical infrastructure.
Russian attacks on Ukraine’s power plants during the winter of 2022-2023 left 12 million people with limited or no access to energy and severely damaged Ukraine's health care system.
Just how might the arrest warrants influence the war?
Joining the show to discuss the arrest warrants and their potential impact are Kateryna Busol and Rebecca Hamilton.
Kateryna is a Ukrainian lawyer and an Associate Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Rebecca is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University.
Show Notes:
Kateryna Busol (@KaterynaBusol)Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security’s symposium “International Law in the Face of Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv” Fionnuala Ní Aoláin’s Just Security article “A Zone of Silence: Obstetric Violence in Gaza and Beyond” and Podcast episode with Paras and Viola Gienger “Harm to Women in War Goes Beyond Sexual Violence: `Obstetric Violence' Neglected” Just Security’s International Law coverageJust Security’s Russia-Ukraine War coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI) - Visa fler
