Is international law dead?

Geneva is the home of international law, the rules that are supposed to stop the worst violations in war. But does anyone respect it anymore?

Please watch the video version of this episode on YouTube.

Andrew Clapham, Professor of International Law at the Geneva Graduate Institute, says: “It’s quite blatant that when we like what the International Criminal Court is doing we will support it, but as soon as it steps out of line we will call it a ridiculous institution. So, it is a bit of a crossroads for international law.” 

The Geneva Conventions are 75 years old – are young people even aware of them? 

“We have the law, and at least my generation or younger generations tolerate much less those types of violations, and we are reporting more,” says Cristina Figueira Shah, international law student and co-President of the Human Rights, Conflict and Peace Initiative. 

Are there any rules of war that work? 

Laurent Gisel, Head of the Arms and Conduct of Hostilities Unit at the Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), explains that “far fewer people know about the prohibition of blinding laser weapons than the mine ban treaty. Why? Because it has been prohibited before they were developed. And it was prohibited 50 years ago.” 

Does indicting a political leader achieve more than headlines? 

“Naming somebody as a potential war criminal has a huge effect because if the leader is named as a war criminal, like President Putin or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that means that assisting them to do what they are doing means that you are aiding and assisting, potentially, in a war crime,” says Clapham. 

How can we encourage more respect? 

“I think we should go back and understand all the reasons why we got to this point in the first place. How we wrote all the international treaties and understand from that what our generation can do to improve it,” says Shah.

“Violation of international humanitarian law creates even more hatred. And if you want to live in peace afterwards, it helps to respect international humanitarian law during the conflict,” says Gisel. 

Join Imogen Foulkes for an Inside Geneva special from Geneva’s Graduate Institute where experts and audience ask: “Is international law dead”? 

Please listen and subscribe to our science podcast -- the Swiss Connection. 

Get in touch!

• Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
• Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en

Thank 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 Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:07

This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, imogen Foulkes, and this is a production from Swissinfo, the international public media company of Switzerland.

Speaker 2: 0:20

In today's programme, it's quite blatant that when we like what the International Criminal Court is doing, we will support it, but as soon as it steps out of line we'll call it a ridiculous institution. So it is a bit of a crossroads for international law.

Speaker 3: 0:35

There is universal jurisdiction, if I can put it this way. Every state having ratified the Geneva Convention should have a national law that enables them to try every war crime whenever the suspect is on their territory 50 years ago or 60 years ago, we as a society would not discuss about those types of human rights violations the same way.

Speaker 4: 0:57

Now we have the law. At least my generation, our younger generation, tolerates much less those types of violations and we are reporting more.

Speaker 2: 1:05

International law might seem to be being broken on a daily basis with no enforcement, but the enforceability of it comes in sometimes surprising ways, when you're least expecting it, and it's more enforceable than we think.

Speaker 3: 1:19

Violation of international humanitarian law creates even more hatred and, if you want to live in peace afterwards, that helps to respect international humanitarian law during the conflicts.

Speaker 1: 1:32

Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen Fowkes and we have a very special episode for you today and a very topical one. We recorded the podcast with experts and an audience at Geneva's Graduate Institute. Our question is international law dead? So, without further ado, here's what that sounded like. Welcome to you all. We've got what I hope is a provocative but actually pretty topical question to ask today, and that is is international law dead? And maybe what better place to discuss it than here in Geneva, at Geneva's Graduate Institute, with experts and with students as well.

Speaker 1: 2:21

To welcome our panel, we have here Professor Andrew Clapham some of you probably know him, professor of International Law here at the Graduate Institute. We have Christina Figueras Shah, a student here very important, I think, to get the younger generation to comment on the body of law, much of which is getting on for a century old. And we have guardian of the Geneva Conventions here, that is, laurent Giesel, and he's head of the Arms Unit and Conduct of Hostilities at the International Committee of the Red Cross. We're going to talk for about 25 minutes to half an hour. Then we will gladly take some of your questions. But let's kick off first. I've got a really basic question. It's maybe too basic sometimes for a Geneva audience, but not for our listeners across the world. And I'm going to start with you, andrew Clapham what does international law actually mean to you as a person, as an academic?

Speaker 2: 3:17

Oh, I wasn't expecting that. It's my life, so it's obviously difficult for me to be too critical about international law or human rights law or humanitarian law, because that's what I do. What does it mean in terms of like a big world view? I suppose it's considered by some of the people that I read, and my world view would be that it's a way of avoiding chaos between states. It's a bit different from national law in that it works to control how sovereign states behave, but also at their behest, but it's a better way of organizing things than if we didn't have international law. I suppose the point of a podcast like this and this discussion is that that's very abstract and dry, and today people think of international law and they think of something that is going to bring justice and that is going to stop violence, and so I think it's a crucial moment for international law, because the big question is can it live up to those expectations?

Speaker 1: 4:13

Very good question. I don't think we'll get a definitive answer to that in the course of an hour, but, laurent Giesel, I'm going to come to you next. Your organisation is one that springs to many people's minds around the world when we think about upholding international law on the Geneva Conventions. Andrew said it's kind of between us and chaos. Is that how you see it?

Speaker 3: 4:39

I certainly think that's a very important element of international law in general. It's behind a lot of our daily life. Whatever we do that has an international aspect to it. Even a phone call, you know, buying things online, etc. All of that below it there is some international law, so to speak, on the title of the panel. Definitely it's not dead, that's for sure.

Speaker 3: 5:01

Now, of course, a big aspect of international law is the interstate question. From my perspective, of course, at the International Committee of the Red Cross is international humanitarian law, and that's an extremely important part of international law and that's what it means to me professionally. I deal with that every day. So the purpose of that specific body of law in international law is to put some standard of humanity in armed conflict. Armed conflict is always horrifying, always horrible, always creating death, injury and destructions. But international humanitarian law aims to limit that and keep a level of humanity in it. And, as we are here in Geneva, the basic international treaty for international humanitarian law, as the four Geneva Conventions which were ratified and adopted here 75 years ago. So it's this year the 75th anniversary. There are plenty of other treaties that have been developed afterwards that we can maybe also talk to you later additional protocols, lots of humanitarian disarmament treaties, extremely important. So it's a living body of law, definitely not a dead one.

Speaker 1: 6:10

I'm interested in the views of the younger generation. Christina Lawrence says it's definitely not dead, but he did point out we're marking the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Convention. 75 years is a long time ago. Does that seem a long way away to your generation? Do you still see the relevance, or is it that was for another era?

Speaker 4: 6:33

What I would say is that there is, for sure, two answers for that question.

Speaker 4: 6:39

If we think about here in international Geneva, for example, the youth here and, of course, us as students of the Graduate Institute, we still think it's very relevant and we still think that, even though it has problems. So, for example, one problem that we think a lot is about how to enforce international law and how to make the states that we know they are sovereign to abide a little bit more than they are doing now. But at the same time, for example, I'm from Brazil and if we talk with a person of my age, under 20s, and ask about international law, they would be like oh, it's not something useful at all, it's not something that we deal in our country and that's not relevant. I don't agree, but I completely understand the point of view, because sometimes it feels very far from what we are facing and with our problems there. So it's not that for sure, but it needs to be rethink about how international law can be a little bit more appealing and it makes more sense to our generation.

Speaker 1: 7:47

Laura, I'm going to come to you and then to you, andrew, to respond to that. The ICRC talks privately, confidential bilateral discussions, I think, is what you always call it. Reminding we're in parts of the Geneva Conventions, but we never hear about that. So it would be useful, maybe, for us to hear how, if it's effective, give us an example of how it's effective, you know, show us that this international law that we're talking about is more than just fine words on paper.

Speaker 3: 8:15

It is applied by parties to conflicts and militaries every day all over the world. It works definitely. It works when a soldier directs its attack at a military, which they do more often than directing an attack at civilians, which is prohibited by the law. It works when we deliver Red Cross messages, so messages that we collect, for example, from detainees and then bring them to their families to bring them news. And that's just a piece of paper, but it's extremely important just to give you one personal experience that I delivered one Red Cross message in a remote village in a country in conflict. I couldn't speak with the person because of language barriers, so we had translator, but I immediately saw the person to whom I was giving the Red Cross message starting to cry. Why? Because that was not just news from the son of that father, but it was actually news that the son was alive, which he didn't know for the last nine months, and was in English to know what had occurred to his son and whether he was actually dead. So it works.

Speaker 3: 9:23

I have seen that also in place of detention that I visited and that my colleagues visit all over the world every day. That can make a difference definitely. Now there are also definitely violations of international humanitarian law in many conflicts that are today very much under scrutiny. And it's great that they are under scrutiny. The worst would be that we forget that. It's great that it's so much discussed and so much because that gives hope that things can change.

Speaker 1: 9:51

Andrew, you've served on UN human rights investigation, particularly in South Sudan, but that's more to in some ways to document the violations that are going on rather than uphold the law. So I'm interested also in hearing from you how does it work? I mean, particularly in a context like that.

Speaker 2: 10:15

I mean, you're right. At first glance, writing down all the violations that have happened seems a rather weak form of law. We should be more interested in enforcing the law, even preventing the violations. But I like to think that over those six years, by being known for actually documenting what's going on, one must give some people pause for thought, that they don't want to get onto the list of people who have violated international law. They don't want to get onto a sanctions list so that they can't travel. They don't want to get into a situation where their assets are seized for having been accused of violating international law. So the fact of talking about the violation as Laurent was rather hinting can give rise to compliance, because people choose not to attack civilians, people choose not to use child soldiers.

Speaker 2: 11:06

I was in a meeting last week where people were sharing experience and it seems that there are some groups that are choosing no longer to use child soldiers precisely not to get accused of committing that war crime or getting onto the Secretary General's list.

Speaker 2: 11:21

So, rather than focusing on those sort of flagrant violations, I think it's important to see this as a framework which tells people, yes, how to behave, and that gives people the chance to avoid misbehaving, to put it gently, and to avoid being labelled a war criminal.

Speaker 2: 11:37

And I think the events of the last few months have highlighted for people that naming somebody as a potential war criminal has a huge effect, because if the leader is named as a war criminal, like President Putin or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that means that assisting them to do what they're doing means that you are aiding and assisting potentially in a war crime.

Speaker 2: 12:01

So it gives everybody notice that cooperation with somebody or a state that's involved in violations of international law can bring responsibility to you too, and I think that's actually an important, not just educative effect, but I think it's actually preventing some of the violence which otherwise would go on. To put it brutally, it's preventing some arms transfers which are happening because judges are able to say I can now see that there is a risk that these arms would be used in a war crime. Therefore the arms can't be transferred, and that's the case of what happened in the Dutch Court of Appeal with regards to the pieces for the F-35s. So that's a very concrete example of how international law is in action and very much alive how international law is in action and very much alive.

Speaker 1: 12:44

We're going to come on a little bit more to the current tussles, if you like, over international law and the role of international courts in a moment. But, Christina, I wanted to ask you again. I don't mean to say, oh, you're the young person you have to represent all young people.

Speaker 1: 12:59

but you are young and you are also kind of the post 9-11 generation, and the ICRC did a study two or three years back maybe a couple more than that where it asked young people their views on different aspects of international law and particularly the total prohibition on torture. Now a significant proportion of younger people in developed countries, in the United States and Britain, said they thought torture was permissible if it brought results, if it prevented terrorism. Now you're saying when you talk to your friends in Brazil that they also don't necessarily see international laws especially useful. What would you say to them to change their minds?

Speaker 4: 13:45

Actually, I think I will try to explain to them how.

Speaker 4: 13:51

Of course it's not perfect with international law, but without all the conventions that we have, for example, it would be very hard to actually get to some outcomes In South America, in Brazil I can talk a little bit more in depth about it.

Speaker 4: 14:08

We also have problems with torture and in institutional aspects in different times of our history. For sure we can address those types of problems through the international conventions if we have them. So I think one of the main things that I would talk is not only about how we can see a baseline of how a state or person or a leader can act or not in terms of legality, how it's better to have the international law with us and maybe try to transform that instead of only criticizing it, and we can think a little bit beyond and try to educate ourselves as well, because what I would say is that if you're not work with international law, specifically in Brazil, you barely know about it. It's very different than the reality here in Geneva. So we need to educate our youth to understand what international law can do, what cannot do, and then start rethinking of possible ways of making it more effective.

Speaker 2: 15:14

This torture point is very contextual. So if you ask a bunch of British or American young people, they think that the torture is going to happen to somebody else and it's going to save them.

Speaker 2: 15:26

And there was a series of horrific TV programs after 9-11, I'm thinking particularly of 24 and Jack Bauer, where torture was the solution to everything, but it was always being done to the foreigners.

Speaker 2: 15:38

And, of course, I'm not surprised that you could find a group of people who say, yeah, maybe torture is a good idea, and I've met some of those people. But, of course, if you had asked a group of Syrians or a group of Myanmar people, they would have said absolutely, we are against torture and it never leads to anything good and it's the most horrific thing. So I think we should be careful about saying well, torture can be a useful thing and it's a rather outdated idea. For the people who are liable to get subjected to torture, it's the most horrific idea. And there's this rather unfortunate idea that, yes, but it's okay because it will never be us. Some people are thinking it will always be the other, and it sort of leads to this dehumanization of the enemy, and I think it's something that I feel strongly about that we should never be contemplating this idea that you could instrumentalise another human being in order to achieve your goals.

Speaker 1: 16:29

I wanted to come back to the point I was beginning to address, which is about political leadership, civic leadership. We had a statement from the elders. Some of you may know them. It's former senior UN people, ban Ki-moon, former UN Secretary General, zayd Radha Hussein, former Human Rights Commissioner a group of people who have led international diplomacy over the past two to three decades and they put a statement out this week telling political leaders they needed to show more leadership, otherwise we risk losing the international order, and that they basically mean the standards we have set ourselves.

Speaker 1: 17:03

Now, andrew, you talked about how political leaders they do fight.

Speaker 1: 17:07

We see it here in Geneva tooth and nail, not to be named and shamed, not to come under sanctions, but at the same time, we do well.

Speaker 1: 17:15

I wonder from all of you whether you think this is a growing tendency or it's always been like this, a kind of tendency to politicise international law in the sense that if criticism is directed against me or my mates, well, I don't believe in this law. If it's directed against somebody I currently happen to not like, then it's fine. We had quite a lot of questions online ahead of this about double standards, the classic which I'm sure everybody's got at the top of their minds right now is the huge support from America, from Europe, to condemn Russia, for what anybody here in this room would say are clear violations of international law, including violating the UN Charter, in the first place by invading Ukraine, but then with Israel and Gaza and I'm aware it's a very polarized topic but there, although there is certainly a strong case, I would think to say that there are questions over whether international law is being upheld. These same countries are very hesitant, to many people, to be more to do with geopolitics than it is to do with what the actual law says.

Speaker 2: 18:26

I know we go even further. They're not just hesitant, they're downright antagonistic. So while US authorities welcomed the arrest warrant for President Putin and welcomed the work of the International Criminal Court, we now have a situation where the same politicians are saying this International Criminal Court has to be sanctioned. This is ridiculous. And not just questioning whether the two individuals on both sides have actually violated international law, but whether an international criminal court should exist at all, and calling for all kinds of ridiculous sanctions against the international criminal court, the same court which was seen to be doing a good job before. So I mean, double standards doesn't quite capture it, double speak doesn't quite capture it. It's really quite bizarre.

Speaker 2: 19:11

I could get a little more technical, just because some of the listeners might be interested. I mean, when President Putin was, the arrest warrant was confirmed by the International Criminal Court. Nobody said anything about the fact that Russia was not a state party to the ICC statute. But for Israel, now a lot of the antagonism says, oh, but you can't do this because Israel is not a state party, but the same rules apply to both. They're involved in countries that are under the jurisdiction of the court.

Speaker 2: 19:39

So it's quite blatant that when we like, what the International Criminal Court is doing, we will support it. But as soon as International Criminal Court is doing, we will support it. But as soon as it steps out of line we'll call it a ridiculous institution. So it is a bit of a crossroads for international law and I firmly believe that these institutions will continue. But it's a reminder that international law it's the same law, it's the Geneva Conventions, it applies to everybody and the fact that you don't like it when your friends are accused doesn't mean that the law doesn't actually apply to it. And giving that example, I think again, international law is alive and kicking.

Speaker 1: 20:14

Laurent, I know the ICRC is not going to comment on the more politicised rights and wrongs or, in public anyway, the conflict. But I just wonder whether there is concern within the ICRC at what looks a bit like a kind of pick and choose of international law. It applies to you because you're not my mate, but it doesn't apply to me or my mate over there.

Speaker 3: 20:38

That would be indeed very concerning, and that's something that we are looking at every day. Definitely, to take a step back, I think it's important to underscore that humanitarian law applies universally. Every state have ratified the Geneva Convention and one very particular element of humanitarian law is that it also applies to non-state parties to armed conflict In civil wars, what is called in the law non-international armed conflict. So when a state fights against insurgents, against rebels, against a group that they might call terrorists, international humanitarian law applies and binds both the states and the non-state armed group. So in that sense, the same rule applies to all. That speaks to the absence in the law, at least, of double standards, but treating all the same, and that's critically important.

Speaker 3: 21:26

Now, it's indeed critically important that states apply it also when it concerns themselves and when it concerns their allies, as you mentioned earlier, and that's something we stress very much with states currently, all the more that in every conflict currently, the parties to armed conflict, whether that's a state or a non-state armed group, they are supported by others, they are supported by other states, non-state armed group. I support it by states and whether that's through political support, economic support, direct armed transfer, as Andrew mentioned before, or otherwise, even if it's not about weapons transfer, the fact that you have influence on a party to the conflict, whether that a state or a non-state armed group, that influence that you can use to actually ensure respect for international humanitarian law. That's very much something that we also discuss. We call on state publicly to do that in a general manner and we also discuss that bilaterally in what we call humanitarian diplomacy. So doing that bilateral, discrete work not only with parties to the conflict but also with whoever can influence them towards a better respect for the law.

Speaker 1: 22:33

I'm just wondering, though you talked about the arms trade treaty. That's only 10 years old, and there's other parts of international law that are relatively new. We also know that it's quite interesting on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. A lot of countries took a long time to ratify it. A lot still haven't. We did have quite a few questions, also online, about under international law, how are children protected? Christina, do you see a pressure between the sovereignty of a state, say your own, brazil, or mine, britain where politicians say you don't need to tell us how to do this, we can look after our children. Or, of course, we're responsible with arms trade. We don't need to sign a treaty, we're fine as we are.

Speaker 4: 23:17

I think definitely there is a little bit of sovereignty discourse as we talk about the rights of children, but at the same time there is a convention and for example, in my case in Brazil, we have our own domestic convention that also applies the international convention of children's rights. So we can see that there is, at the same time, the domestic sovereignty, but we try to make the rights of children the most important thing. We have a lot of like policies, public policies on how to. For example, famine is a problem in our country that is growing, unfortunately, in the past five years, especially among children in vulnerable positions in the north of our country from indigenous descent. It's related to previous governmental choices, for example, our ex-president. He has international charges against him in relation to genocide of indigenous communities, and maybe Lohan and Professor Kappam can talk a little bit more about that as well.

Speaker 1: 24:26

Andrew, I saw you nodding there. I'm just wondering if you also see this. Increasingly, some governments see international law as kind of mission creep that they just don't need it. Or is that just populist? Is that just election talk?

Speaker 2: 24:42

I think you just put your finger on it. I think it's populist election talk. I was reading my English paper this morning and I noticed that there was a government minister saying that they would put in the Conservative manifesto probably the idea of leaving the European Court of Human Rights. I mean, if you put it now in the context of an election, it's a way of getting votes, or not or not.

Speaker 2: 25:07

I lived through some of the discussions here in Switzerland about foreign judges and the political maneuvers again more recently after the climate change case to not just sanction the European Court of Human Rights but to start again this discussion about Switzerland leaving or the UK leaving, and it's seen as, as you quite rightly say, foreign interference. But often there are a lot of lies about the court. If you go through some of the propaganda that the populist parties put out about the European Court of Human Rights and you follow up the cases, they're often distorted to make it sound as though the European Court of Human Rights has ensured that an incredibly violent person has been allowed to stay on Swiss territory or UK territory, when in fact, when you go through the details of the case, it's really rather different. So it's a popular demon.

Speaker 2: 26:02

International courts, whether it's the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the Gouvernement des Juges Etrangers All of this is designed, in my view, to sort of whip up support for particular parties, and I think we have nothing to fear from international courts is my view, but of course I'm a little biased. I've worked with these courts.

Speaker 2: 26:20

I've even been on the secretariat of some of these bodies and so worked with these courts. I've even been on the secretariat of some of these bodies, and so I come from the sort of internationalist Geneva perspective.

Speaker 1: 26:30

Guilty as charged? Yes, well, we probably all are sitting on the same in the same dock on that one, but it is you've been very patient time to turn to you for questions. So we've heard about political manipulation of international law. We've heard about why it is relevant, from people who work on the ground trying to uphold it, and we've heard about the younger generation and whether they're committed to it, whether they see it's relevant Over to you. Do you have any questions?

Speaker 5: 26:59

You've mentioned a little bit about how armed groups are avoiding use of child soldiers. We've heard about military manuals incorporating international law, but I wonder, if you look at any of the major conflicts of the last 50 years Balkans, chechnya, iraq and all the conflicts that we have currently can you give examples of how international law has actually reined in the conduct of hostilities?

Speaker 1: 27:26

I think this is a very good question, because I think it's the one thing you could use to convince people who are saying, oh, it's just a bunch of do-gooders, do-gooding lawyers writing papers, and maybe I'll start with the ICRC, go on.

Speaker 3: 27:42

Armed conflicts are always horrible. Let's be clear on that in the first place. They are horrible even if they would be perfect. Respect for humanitarian law Armed conflict as such is a horrible phenomenon that is created by human beings. That should be prevented in the first place and that states and the international community should work on that and find political solutions to that, especially for long-lasting conflicts.

Speaker 3: 28:04

Now, with regard to international humanitarian law, whether it has reigned in. Yes, every day in conflicts you have military who do collateral damage assessments. So, as military say so, meaning before doing a strike, assessing how many civilian casualties they expect, assessing whether they expect to, incidentally, damage hospitals or an electricity station or the house of a family, and they do that every day. So that's definitely reigning in Whether that's sufficient, whether that's sufficiently well done, whether that's sometimes disregarded. Of course, there are issues in that respect and respect for humanitarian law needs to be improved. And that's linked to political decisions, let's be clear political decisions on whether or not to respect the law, and that's why the political aspect that you mentioned before Imogen is so important, not only with regards to political and civilian leadership, with regard to their own troops, but also from other states, but definitely it makes a difference, and it has made a difference in the conflict over the last 50 years. It will not make conflict human, for sure. Conflict in and of itself is an inhuman matter.

Speaker 2: 29:24

Andrew, I'm going to choose one example of landmines. The sort of push by civil society to have a landmine ban treaty was obviously successful. In fact, the landmine ban treaty doesn't actually, on its words, cover the non-state actors that are fighting against states. And yet the sort of feeling that this is against international law I'm sort of choosing my words so as not to be sort of thought to be legally illiterate led to a number of armed groups refusing to use landmines because they didn't want to be seen going against the international norm.

Speaker 2: 30:01

And perhaps you know you're asking for concrete examples. I mean, through the work of groups like Geneva, call those same armed groups or non-state actors, rebel groups, chose to destroy their stockpiles of landmines so that they couldn't fall into the hands of other armed groups or be used again when there was a change of leadership. So if you're sort of looking for sort of ratchet effects changes, I think there is a diminishing use of landmines amongst some of those groups and it's not just because they ran out of money or they couldn't get hold of them. It's because of this normative sense that there's something wrong with it and it's delegitimizing because of the role of international law. So without the landmine treaty and without those meetings about landmines you wouldn't have this push and the international legal pull against using them I think has an effect.

Speaker 1: 30:51

Yes, Lorain, you wanted to come in there.

Speaker 3: 30:54

That's a very powerful example for non-state armed groups, as you mentioned, also for states, and it's measurable, with the number of victims going down tenfold compared to before the treaty was in place. The number of civilian victims of mines has been divided by ten. But there are also everything that we see less and don't make headlines, and again it's the preventive aspect to it. Probably much less people know about the prohibition of blinding laser weapons than the mine bans treaty. Why? Because it has been prohibited before they were developed and it was prohibited 50 years ago. So one effect of humanitarian law over the 50 years of the conflict for your questions is that there was no blinding laser weapons ever being deployed because those were not developed.

Speaker 3: 31:39

Imagine if the landmine treaty had been adopted before mines had been industrially produced, how much even more it would have made of a difference. So that's key and that's something that continues developing. The weapons treaty that prohibits specific types of the most horrible weapons have evolved since 1980, continuously, on average every five years, and the latest one is for the treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, finally having also a treaty for weapons of mass destruction after the prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. So that's the most recent one and it continues, and today's situation shows how relevant it is.

Speaker 1: 32:18

Christine, are you reassured by this? Because at the moment, I agree that these two examples, they are very positive ones. What we see on our TV screens and maybe that's the fault of my profession, but what we see is what looks like deliberate attempts to terrify the civilian population. We've seen in Ukraine the attacks on the power supplies, denial of aid access. We're seeing this in Gaza as well lies, denial of aid access. We're seeing this in Gaza as well restricted aid, what looked like disproportionate attacks on civilians. I mean, I'm just wondering is that, oh my God, people are just not respecting them? Or is it good that we're reporting on them Because we actually know? Maybe we know our international law better than we thought I would?

Speaker 4: 33:01

agree with Professor Clapham about how there is a change of normative and a behavioural change. For example, maybe 50 years ago or 60 years ago we as a society would not discuss about those types of human rights violations in the same way. So I do think that it is something important that now we have the normatives and we have the law, at least my generation or young generations tolerate much less those types of violation and we are reporting more. So I think this is also something with social media and the new types of media, that we have more information about the violations that are going on so we can be more vocal about it, even though that we are far away physically from the places of violation. But at the same time, I also know that it's an ongoing problem. Many parts of conflicts non-state actors or state actors. They do not apply the humanitarian law and they do not follow the basic human rights laws.

Speaker 1: 34:04

Andrew, I mean this is a key question. Is it the enforceability? We do have these courts. Their wheels grind rather slowly, faster for some than others. It doesn't seem like obligatory, it seems kind of optional.

Speaker 2: 34:27

No, I do take the point, and it's not unusual to take that point of view. I can remember a few decades ago teaching with a political scientist here at the Institute and I said, oh, it's important because the prosecutor has announced that she wants to have Milosevic arrested and prosecuted. And my political science colleague said to me Andrew, you haven't understood anything about how the world works, or you know that your law is not proper law. There is no way in which Milosevic is going to be arrested and prosecuted. That's just not how the world works. International law is not infalcible. And of course, he was eventually arrested and prosecuted. And so my sort of answer is international law might seem to be being broken on a daily basis with no enforcement, but the enforceability of it comes in sometimes surprising ways, when you're least expecting it, and it's more enforceable than we think. When General Pinochet traveled to London to see a doctor, he probably had an idea that international law was not very enforceable and not very important and that national law was all that counted and his friend Margaret Thatcher, you know, would be meeting him for tea and nothing could happen to him and all the rest of it. But in fact, as everybody in the room probably knows. You know he was eventually detained and arrested and although he wasn't prosecuted for human rights reasons, which we could discuss the point is that people do get arrested when they're least expecting it.

Speaker 2: 35:49

To give an example of a head of state, another one that was arrested and prosecuted Charles Taylor from Liberia did not think he was going to be arrested, but international law ensured that he was.

Speaker 2: 35:58

He couldn't have been arrested without international law and he was prosecuted in an international criminal court and he's now in prison. So you know, to those who say but it's not proper law, it is best practices and it provides the sort of guidance that Laurent has been talking about, that it's used every day as a best practice. But that doesn't mean it's not the sort of law that can't actually find you ending up in prison or finding you sanctioned, or finding that your arms don't arrive because a judge has said to send them would be in violation of international law. So I totally take the point that when you switch on the TV in the first half an hour you will see hundreds of violations of international law these days, but that doesn't mean that some of them might not end up being prosecuted and there might be some enforceability. There are people now being prosecuted for things in Argentina and Brazil which happened a long, long time ago. So yes, it means holding your breath a bit and waiting, but it doesn't mean it's not proper law with legal consequences.

Speaker 1: 36:58

And we have universal jurisdiction, which is now and you're nodding. I just wonder if you want to say something about that, christina, because countries now have the power to say this person not my citizen.

Speaker 4: 37:09

But I have compelling evidence this person is on my territory that this person has violated the law of human rights, we judge cases that happened in our military dictatorship that finished it in 1985. So it's been a long time ago. And because we have, in the case of Brazil, we have our amnesty law, which is another that makes everything much more difficult for the right people to be judged. But at the same time, we would never have thought that perpetrators by that time would be actually judged and some reparations would happen. And we are seeing this very effective. And, for example, we had a very famous journalist that was killed by this military junta, vladimir Herzog, that it took, I think, 30 years for the right people to be condemned and judged. And Brazil needs to make reparations in many aspects financial reparations, but also created a monument in his regards and create a dictatorship museum so people could remember. So, of course, it takes much longer than we want to, but at the same time, we can still see good results.

Speaker 1: 38:26

Lauren, does it help the ICRC in your behind-the-scenes work encouragement to uphold international law that people are aware they could end up in court?

Speaker 3: 38:39

We are very much convinced by the value of enforcement in the sense of criminal trials for war crimes or serious violation of humanitarian law, which is the same thing, and in that sense the development of the International Criminal Court is hugely welcome.

Speaker 3: 38:56

There are all the examples that, andrew, you mentioned before.

Speaker 3: 38:59

It also have an indirect effect because, of course, the International Criminal Court is not meant to try every single violation in armed conflict all over the world that would be impossible but to also push states to do that themselves, which is their obligation in the first place vis-à-vis their own armed forces or their own citizens that might have committed war crimes.

Speaker 3: 39:24

The other aspect is universal jurisdiction that you mentioned, and I very much agree with that. It's an extremely important tool, also one that requires lots of behind-the-scenes work preventively, to make sure that states have that actually in their national law For war crimes. It's based on the Geneva Convention, so there is universally universal jurisdiction, if I can put it this way. Every state, having ratified the Geneva Convention, should have a national law that enables them to try every war crime whenever the suspect is on their territory. And that's indeed something that has seen more prominence recently, with more cases being brought in front of national courts, and that's very important as well, both in terms of the prosecution but also in terms of the message is sent, preventive message with regards to potential future violations okay, thank you.

Speaker 1: 40:16

More questions at you, sir.

Speaker 6: 40:18

Thank you very much. I heard the mention of torture and prevention work at the un office of the high Commissioner for Human Rights on prevention of torture, so I was very much delighted to hear both present at this discussion the preventive aspect of the work of the United Nations and how lots and lots and lots of conflicts and catastrophes that we don't hear about have been prevented by the force of the United Nations and the multilateral system. But what comes out is what has not been able to be prevented and in that sense I wanted to shift the topic to multilateral system, as I work in it and our faith in it is on the line. We see that the United Nations is being choked liquidity crisis. Enough to walk around in the Palais des Nations. You see empty rooms, escalators off too dark States sanctioning UN officials closing down our offices, 200 of our personnel killed in only one conflict in the past few months. My question is are we close to the fourth turning and this faith for the United Nations similar to that of the League of Nations, in your opinion?

Speaker 1: 41:40

Well, that is a topic for a whole other podcast, isn't it really? I would hope not. As a summing up, because we are coming to the end and I'll start with you, Andrew, what would you say to the powerful who still call the shots? It's in your interest, it's in all our interests why we need international law and, to a certain extent, the multilateral system. Convince so, I'm Trump. Convince me.

Speaker 2: 42:13

Well.

Speaker 1: 42:15

I mean, I know it's a stretch.

Speaker 2: 42:17

I'm not going to speak to you as I would speak to Trump. I think Not for public broadcasting, but no, I mean, I think today's problems clearly require multilateral solutions and international cooperation. If you want to talk about preventing a future pandemic, if you want to ensure that we deal with climate justice, if you want to tackle issues of migration, all of these issues are going to have to be resolved by states talking to each other and finding ways to cooperate. I mean, we have the metaphor of the escalators being switched off in the Palais des Nations, but I was actually yesterday with somebody and I told them I was going to be doing this talk about, you know, is international law dead? And they came from the WTO. They said the WTO car park has never been fuller, there has never been more activity.

Speaker 2: 43:05

The fact that it's not resulting in treaties that you read about on the front page of Tribune de Genève is not the point, because people have to organize moving around of medical equipment, moving around of essential drugs, dealing with cholera, all of these questions, patents on medicines. So there will be international cooperation and at a certain point the powerful can step away from that and they can use their muscle to say I'm not joining this treaty, but the world will move on and I think it's in their interests. I've been in enough treaty negotiations to realise that powerful states. They need to be involved because they want the world order to be fixed in their interest. And they don't always get their way.

Speaker 1: 43:45

Christina. So I'm not Donald now, I'm Barron Trump. What would you say to him? A teenager, a billionaire teenager? This is actually really relevant to you too.

Speaker 4: 43:56

I think I would tell him to read history a little bit more. Like tell him to read history a little bit more, because we need to go back to how the international system was before we had all the international treaties, to understand the importance of them now and to understand what our generation can do to improve it, instead of just demanding it or just thinking as referring back to to my friends and colleagues back in Brazil useless or not that important anymore. In today's world we know that it's still international law, the main way in international cooperation, as Professor Kappen said, that we can prevent future conflicts and future pandemics and future international problems that we need to. The world nowadays is much more close together and globalized, so it's not that likely that one country is facing one problem and it will stick in that one country. So I think we should go back, understand the all the reasons why we got to this point at first place of how we wrote all the international treaties and understand from that on what our generation can do to improve it.

Speaker 1: 45:15

Pretty much the same question to you, laurent, but maybe focused on the Geneva Conventions, because my great-grandma knew what they were. She was just trying to find out where her husband was in the war. But almost a century on it seems less. How would you convince people you could need this? You do need it and you could really need it personally at some point?

Speaker 3: 45:36

I very much agree with you, christina, with regard to looking at history, the Geneva Convention. As you say, they are 75 years old, 49. That's just after the Second World War, and that was based on the experience of the Second World War, which, of course, is the most horrible conflict that we ever seen, with the most violations of anything that you can think of, with weapons of mass destruction being used. So it's the big power to point back to your questions on how you convince the strong ones they decided to make the Geneva Convention because they learned from the Second World War. And today's big powers should remember that the Geneva Convention and humanitarian law have been designed for high-intensity conflicts. They are meant to apply there and to reduce and prevent the most horrible aspect of it. So that's the first part of the answer. Then the second part of the answer, of course, complying with international humanitarian law.

Speaker 3: 46:32

You have all reasons to do that because it's the law and you don't want to break the law. You don't want to be a war criminal. We have discussed that earlier. You have all reasons to want to do that because you reduce suffering, so that bring a little bit more humanity in a horrible situation. And then you need to think about the future and that's where also I see the win-win that helps peace. If you respect humanitarian law during the conflict, it will be less difficult to make peace afterwards at all levels, both in terms of reconstructions and living. If you have less destruction of civilian infrastructure, if you have less territory that has been mined, it's easier for economic recovery, which of course helps as well, and it also helps avoid too much hatred. Of course conflicts create hatred, but violation of international humanitarian law creates even more hatred and if you want to live in peace afterwards, that helps to respect international humanitarian law during the conflicts.

Speaker 1: 47:30

Thank you very much. Well, that brings us to the end of this panel discussion. I hope we've convinced you all that not only is international law not dead, but it remains hugely relevant to every single one of us, both in here and out there and all around the world. My thanks to our panellists, Andrew, Christina and Laurent, and thank you for joining us. That's it from Inside Geneva for this week. Thank you of Switzerland, available in many languages as well as English. Check out our other content at wwwswissinfoch. You can find Inside Geneva and review us and subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Imogen Folks. Thanks again for listening and do join us next time on Inside Geneva.