#35. International Law and Armed Conflict - Prof. Alberto Costi

As the term "international law" is brought up frequently in discourse these days we sat down with Professor Alberto Costi to get an introduction into international law and laws of armed conflict. We cover how international law works and how it is implemented? Who can be held accountable for breaches in international humanitarian law? Where do non-state actors fit in? The nuances within the Geneva Conventions and examples of past and present cases regarding genocide and why the current law is not always the best mechanism to prevent crimes against humanity.

Prof. Costi specializes in the law of armed conflict, international criminal law, international human rights law, the law of international organizations and in comparative law and EU law. He is a member of the New Zealand International Humanitarian Law Committee, serves as the Secretary-General of the International Law Association New Zealand Branch and is the Vice-President of the New Zealand Association for Comparative Law.

Prof Costi's Profile: https://people.wgtn.ac.nz/Alberto.Costi

Support us and reach out!
https://smoothbrainsociety.com
Instagram: @thesmoothbrainsociety
TikTok: @thesmoothbrainsociety
Twitter/X: @SmoothBrainSoc
Facebook: @thesmoothbrainsociety
Merch and all other links: Linktree
email: thesmoothbrainsociety@gmail.com

Transcript

0:00

Bye! Welcome everybody to the SmoothBrand Society. I am Sahil. With me today is Professor Alberto Costi and my co-host Jeremy Hall. I will let Jeremy introduce himself in a bit, and then we will talk about Professor Alberto Costi's work. But I needed to get through a few things about this episode before we get started. So today we're going to be talking about in We're going to go through a little bit of an introduction into international law and international law of armed conflict. And we're recording this on the 26th of March here in the UK and 27th of March in New Zealand. And so therefore, what recently happened in terms of the news is just yesterday, the… you say, the United Nations Security Council finally passed a resolution on a sort of ceasefire deal for the next couple weeks while the month of Ramzan is happening. And by the time this episode comes out, we would have been one week through it. So this is not completely up to date with those details. But I thought I'd give you an idea of when we're recording it, because some of the examples which will be brought up in this discussion might be relevant. Another thing which we also might talk about is because this podcast episode is about international law and armed conflict We might talk about Russia and Ukraine. We might talk about some of the laws around genocide. So keep that in mind I think an important thing to keep in mind is we're talking about international law. And so please appreciate the fact that sometimes the The law on its own might not lead to the results one would wish and please appreciate that fact when we discussing this And yeah, I think those were the key things which I wanted to point out some of the examples which we go through and all that. So yeah, with that, let's get to the actual episode. I'll first introduce, I'll first let Jeremy introduce himself. So you all might know him by with the shirt, which I'm wearing or the logo of the Smooth Brain Society. He's the one who's designed it. So I'll let Jeremy talk a little bit more about his work. So go ahead, bro. Well, yeah, hi. I'm Jeremy. I'm a Kiwi director and producer working in London and the advertising scene. Um, and Sahir and I have known each other for quite some time. Yeah. And, uh, I saw the initial Smoothbrain Society graphics and decided that they needed an update really quickly. Uh, he couldn't be friends with any creators and have non, non good, uh, logo design. And yeah, and we're keen learner and interested in these kinds of things. So very, very happy to be here, man. Thanks. Great. Great to finally have you on. I've been trying to get you on for a bit, to be fair. All right. So the, I guess the star of the show, the person we really need to talk to today, Professor Alberto Cosi, he is a professor in law at Victoria University of Wellington. There's He's part of a lot of things, so I'm just going to read out some of them. So he specializes in the law of armed conflict, international criminal law, international humanitarian rights law, the law of international organizations and international environmental law, and in comparative law and European Union law. So he has published extensively in all these areas and just some of the things which... He is a member of the New Zealand International Humanitarian Law Committee and serves as Secretary General of the International Law Association New Zealand branch and he is the Vice President of the New Zealand Association for Comparative Law. So welcome Professor Costi, thank you for coming on. Thank you very much, Sayer. It's a real pleasure to be with you and Jeremy today to discuss some very interesting issues. Well, sadly, very interesting and very topical issues on international law. So I'm really happy that I have this opportunity. So thank you very much for welcoming me on this podcast. Thank you. So should we start there? Like you said, topical, we hear it a lot in the news that international law, there's someone's violating international law, something's happening. But what is it? What what is international law? Is it this kind of constitution the world has agreed on or are they different documents? How does it actually work? If you could give us an idea because I feel not many people actually know. Thank you. Thank you very much for this opportunity because a problem with international law at the moment, because of the sad events that are occurring all over the place, not only what we see in the media in Ukraine, in Gaza, but there are conflicts in Africa, in Asia. And I'm really sorry to start with that there's some noise, because it's very windy in Wellington. Wellington is a very windy city. And I can see from my window the rough seas as well, which I think encapsulate quite well the state of international relations today. So international law or public international law is at its origin, the rules of law that govern the relations between states. especially in the older days, it was really states were the only subjects of international law, those that had the capacity to enter into treaties, the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other states. And what we've seen, especially when after the second world war, has been the increasing role of international organizations. They were by no means not existing before, but with the creation of the United Nations. We had a great hope that it will allow the international community to work much better by regulating the relations between states, also looking a bit more at the other legal persons. And what we've seen after the Second World War is the creation, or the emergence rather, of other actors, such as international governmental organisations that can enter into treaties. that can have missions like the United Nations, sense agents and boys, as we call them, to different countries when there is a crisis. Some of the auditors might have seen the secretary general of the United Nations going to the border of Gaza in Ra'afah, as the secretary general embodies the organization that has a huge role. And also more and more with the development of human rights law. We've seen that individuals have started to have rights and obligations in international law. You mentioned armed conflicts. Well, obviously, when we look at armed conflicts, individuals who are not taking part in hostilities should be protected. They should not be targeted. At the same time, if someone takes up arms or someone commits acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, they can be prosecuted. So what we've seen the development of international law starting as a body of rules governing relations between states, little by little has increased its presence by also governing relations between states and international organizations. And more recently in time, also relations between states and individuals and legal persons. When I say persons, it's legal person could be sometimes. in some areas corporations, but mostly we're talking about physical persons, you and me, and we do have rights. The international law works generally well. That's partly probably how we are able to speak to each other at this moment, you on the other side of the world. It's possible to travel because of existing treaties between states. Commerce also works with the world trade organizations, free trade agreements. And international, one of the main sources are treaties where states and sometimes international organizations come together and they negotiate the text of a treaty. For instance, the Geneva Conventions that are talked about in both cases of Gaza and Ukraine, that where states agreed to set out on paper rules that govern hostilities. At the same time, international law, especially in the old days and still today prevalent, are rules of customary international law, that is rules that are not in writing, but that are based on practice, consistent and uniform practice, which states follow because they have a feeling that they have a legal obligation to do so. So these are the two main sources of international law. generally states do comply with these rules. But as we see in the case of some of these conflicts, and even sometimes in terms of trade agreements, that there are sometimes conflicts, there are sometimes disputes, and that's where unfortunately a lot of the attention goes. And that's why international law is sometimes perceived as not working, even though most of the time it works. Unfortunately, when it doesn't work, it can lead to incredible tragic consequences. Ukraine, Gaza, we can talk about Central African Republic in the last few years, Mali with the destruction of artifacts, rigid artifacts. We can talk about so many conflicts. I think it's the role for media and role for interesting and incredibly important podcasts as yours that we talk about international law. what works, but also what doesn't work, and why sometimes it doesn't work. It might not be that states want to violate international law, but I think international law and international relations go very well together, because sometimes it's a question of vital interests. When a state believes their vital interests are at stake, they will sometimes set aside those rules, and that can make for us, members of the public, a very frustrated breed of people. I'm not sure if that covers a little bit the general rules of international law. Hopefully it gives a general idea at the moment. No, I think it gives a pretty good idea of what to expect. In light of you saying that we don't really focus on the positive things as much. We... We can start there. I think it might be a good idea to give us some kind of positive examples of how international law works or successful cases of it. And then we guess I know we will delve into other things later. Yes, well, examples I can see in the in the case of free trade agreements, even though obviously they do come with a baggage, and they're not all positive, but that sometimes allows products from one country to to cross borders to another country, and that allows for lower tariffs in trade, and therefore lesser costs in terms of consumer prices. At the same time, areas where sometimes it works could be also in terms of aviation law. The fact that tomorrow I'm taking a flight over to the United States to Washington, well, this is made possible in part because of agreements that exist. that allow civil aviation to work with airlines being able to cross the airspace of other states because there is an agreement that allows that to happen without seeking permission all of the time, as long as they stand as planes fly within some corridors. I can think about international environmental law. Again, it can be sometimes slightly contentious. We know that, but... If we look at protection of some species, at risk of extinction, we've got CITES, it was a convention of the 1970s, that has done a lot to try and limit trade in endangered species. I take also the example of human rights, even though there are still a lot of human rights, the presence of human rights treaties to which most states have become... parties have signed up to these treaties means that often our domestic laws take into account human rights protection for us individuals. We still have to comply with the law of the state we are in, but at the same time, if you're imprisoned and there's no trial, you're just sentenced to jail, once all recourses at the domestic level are completed, well, you can... petition to sometimes a human rights committee at the United Nations, or if someone is in Europe at the European Court of Human Rights. What I mean is that there are... States do not live in a vacuum where they can do what they want. They have obligations that they have accepted to comply with, whether it is purely an exercise in... public relations to be able to say we are party to a treaty or because they fundamentally believe. I do like to think that the Geneva Conventions, despite the violations that we see in some of the current conflicts, states sat together and accepted that they needed to set out rules that govern conflicts. It does not eliminate the law farm conflict or international humanitarian law does not eliminate conflicts. attempting to humanize a little bit more what happens during an armed conflict. And you know, Sahir, I would say that when we look at international law, and as I tell my students, when I teach, we have to look at international law. Now we look at it as a discipline, as almost as a language, because in diplomatic circles, states don't have to say much and other states will know what they are meaning. But international law more than simply a legal discipline, it's also a discipline of how to conduct relations in society. But what we have in the 21st century is the product of many centuries and millennia of relations. We can go back to the 2000, 3000 years before the common era. And you had already some treaties, not maybe in the modern sense, the Pharaoh of Egypt and the Aetites in ancient civilization in the Middle East. So there was this idea that sometimes monarchs or rulers would get together. Well, what has evolved over time is that it's gone from, I would say, almost punctual examples here and there to more and more a set of common values where you found the same idea of rulers entering to agreements. in Asia, in ancient Asia, you find that in Europe, in the Middle East. And little by little, these common values kind of crystallize into a common language. And I think the best example is that of the law of armed conflict. We find in both in the Christian tradition, the Jewish tradition, the Muslim tradition, similar principles that you should not... target women, you should not target the elderly, you should not set on fire trees that produce fruit during an armed conflict. There you find similar ideas of limiting the use of force during an armed conflict. And this goes from traditions or records of those historians at the time, to you see towards the 19th century, more and more rules that come into the first Geneva Convention in 1864, you see that in the development of the body of law from conflict in the late 19th century and in the 20th century where we have been able to negotiate important treaties on limiting the use and prohibiting the use of personnel land mines, for instance, and in the 21st century, even the use of cluster munitions. I like to think that international law because otherwise we would be very frustrated if we think it can work in a goal. It's really the product of an evolution. And it goes through some difficult times and sometimes it's through those crisis that something comes out that betters society. Like the United Nations is really the product of the failure of the League of Nations after the First World War. The fact that the states took very much 20s and 1940s and then we had the second world war and that was followed by the creation of the United Nations. So I think really we have to look at these on incremental changes in society and the protection of human rights in 2024. Not perfect, I admit, I'm first one to admit it, but the protection of human rights around the world is as much better than it was 50 years ago, 70 years ago. don't even want to think about going back centuries how individuals were treated. It's really interesting that you bring up this as kind of an evolutionary trait because I guess I often find that humans from all over disagree on quite a lot of things, but it's nice that we've, I guess, agreed on this set of rules to abide by, especially in armed conflicts. How often do we find examples of international law sort of being broken? And in those cases, what are the… penalties, like who is holding the states and countries accountable and how? Yeah. A very good question, Jerry, because yes, it's all very nice to have these principles of international law that we should all live by, all nations in harmony should live by, the reality is that they are broken and the question, how do we remedy broken rules? How do we... ensure that the state has been responsible for breaking a rule, somehow has to, in international law we say that a breach of an international law obligation entails state responsibility. In the best, in a nutshell, in the best of circumstances, we could turn back the clock and a state that for instance has refused to extradite someone to a state that requested such an extradition, Well, turning back the clock is that they will surrender the person. But what happens sometimes is that there's no other way than to go to an international tribunal. And that's the difficulty is that there are many more breaches of international law than there are instances where states will be brought or will take another state to an international tribunal. So international law, what has also improved over time is that there are mechanisms out there when states breach international law. Some involve either a judicial process, like bringing another state to the International Court of Justice. It can be when individuals have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity or genocide could be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court. There are tribunals which are based on arbitration where the parties will accept to go before a third party who will arbitrate the decide between the claims on investment disputes, for instance. Someone was invested in a country and somehow the investment is taken over by the government. There are such tribunals. So that's one way is that states have accepted to appear before a tribunal. That's probably only a minority of situations. Often these breaches will entail a response at the diplomatic level. So for instance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in New Zealand, let's say a foreign warship enters the territorial sea without permission or has a kind of hostile intent. Well, New Zealand could also not, protest to the state of the flag of that ship. These situations are, I think, the majority of cases where at a diplomatic level, the ministries of foreign affairs will correspond, will discuss. And what is interesting in terms of international law is that the response of a state that feels international has been breached. serves sometimes to build the practice. If you have states that do not accept practice by another state on a subject, it can build that practice. So states that means that practice is not acceptable in the international community. The other possibility is that the matter is discussed before the forum of an international organization like the General Assembly. where often a state will raise the matter and this General Assembly has sometimes taken, has passed resolutions condemning the attitude or asking states to comply with international law. This obviously General Assembly resolution, I need to tell you that they are not binding on states, but they can have, I think it can be used as a means of pressuring other states not to violate international law. And then for those who are members of the United Nations, obviously the Security Council has a quasi executive function, but it's not really the right term to use. That sometimes disputes can be taken by member states of the United Nations. Matters can be raised by the Secretary General at the Security Council. A member of the Security Council can bring the situation before the Council. And theoretically, the Security Council could pass a resolution that could involve if it is passed under Chapter 7. You might hear in the news often they say this resolution has been passed under Chapter 7. It's when the Security Council has decided that the situation threatens international peace and security. And then measures can be taken. It can be diplomatic sanctions, economic sanctions. And in rare cases, it can amount also to the... authorization for United Nations members to use force. What the Security Council usually uses as a formula, all necessary means to restore peace and security. Now before, I'm going to even preempt probably one of the questions you could come up with, which is the Security Council, well, it doesn't work well. And you're right, because chapter seven is when state members, some five permanent members of the Security Council, can block a resolution project. And we've seen the last few weeks when China and Russia were not happy with the text of the resolution asking for ceasefire in Gaza, well, they vetoed it. So the problem is that there's kind of a, I would say a double veto that these permanent members, which are the United States of America, United Kingdom, France, the people's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, that they can decide that the situation does not threaten peace and security. And therefore, in that case, the matter will not be taken up under Chapter 7. But even if it does, if there is a decision, there is a threat to peace and security, the resolution, if it calls for sanctions or calls for... for use of force or even call for a ceasefire can be vetoed by the permanent members. And as you've seen in this resolution that was passed yesterday, it was that the United States did not veto, they abstained. So one of those five permanent members in the 15 member Security Council can decide to just not take part in the vote, they abstain. And in that case, there is no veto. And that's why the resolution was passed. But the resolution does not imply that there will be sanctions, there will be intervention. It only aims, I think, to point out the problem that is existing at the moment. That's good that you preempted the question because what I was thinking was along those lines, there's still something which I'm interested in knowing there. So yeah, you did mention that earlier in the week, Russia and China vetoed this Israel-Hamas conflict ceasefire for particular reasons before that the UK and the US were also vetoing earlier resolutions for other reasons. And I know Russia kept vetoing things with regards to the Ukraine conflict. So one, there seems to be a real conflict of interest here when certain, especially the ones with veto power can say things. I'm sure China would have done it in their benefit. I'm sure the U S might have done it with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan before. Um, so I have two questions. One is. Is there ways to get around this or is this just an inherent flaw? And the second thing is, how did all these link with the international criminal court and the international court of justice? Because they seem like both big events, but as we know, there's cases going on against, well, I can talk about three different genocide cases. One is by the Gambia versus Myanmar. The other one is Ukraine versus Russia. And the third one is Israel-Palestine. Oh, South Africa, Palestine, technically. Yeah, so how do these kind of link up to each other and the inherent flaws with it? Yes, well, on the latter point, the reality is that, so international law is based on the consent of states. That consent, they express it through entering into treaties, entering, accepting to follow rules of unwritten law that they feel they have to follow. What the rule of consent means, first of all, that a state cannot be forced to appear before a court unless they have consented to it. So that's why there are few cases before the International Court of Justice, because for that to happen, there must be evidence that the state has consented to it. Now, In the recent times, you mentioned those three cases on genocide, but in reality, the International Court of Justice has become a popular forum again to try and resolve disputes because some of these treaties do have the, as the means of mechanism to settle dispute recourse to the International Court of Justice. So in the case of Gambia, some people might wonder how a state based in In Africa, what is its interest in what's happening in Myanmar? And also you could ask why is South Africa taking an action against Israel? The reality is that these states have all become parties. So they signed up, they've accepted to be bound by the Genocide Convention. The Convention on Genocide that was adopted in 1948, obviously in the aftermath of the atrocities of the Second World War. does provide as a mechanism in case of dispute, in case of states wanting interpretation of the genocide convention, if they have a difference of views, that is a legal dispute, that crystallizes in legal dispute, the means by which they've accepted to resolve these disputes is to go before the International Court of Justice. And that is why these states have taken other states that have a party to the treaty before the court. Now the interesting element in here is that genocide is considered along with torture, the crime of aggression, and probably slavery as well, that there are considered to be obligations so important that all states have an interest in making sure that there's no torture, there's no genocide. And so there is kind of, you know, we call... because in international law we like to be pedantic, so we use a lot of Latin expressions. One of them is what we call use cogens, which are peremptory, obligatory norms of international law that we make that fiction that all states accept must not occur. And genocide is such an important principle, not to commit genocide. And therefore these states, There's probably no Gambian that has been subjected to genocide, to alleged genocide by Myanmar forces, because there is an obligation for all states to ensure there is no genocide occurring. Gambia has been given the capacity to bring the case before against Myanmar, because the court, International Court of Justice, can look at those cases. It's an obligation between the parties to the treaty. That's the same mechanism with South Africa and Israel, and Ukraine and the Russian Federation. So there is that possibility, but again it takes the consent of the state to be able to appear before the International Court of Justice. In the case of the International Criminal Court, it's based again on states becoming parties to the Rome Statute. that was adopted in 1998 that set up this international court. This one is an international criminal court, and this one, this court prosecutes individuals, not states, but individuals who have committed crimes that fall within that, between the and since only a couple of a few years ago, the crime of aggression. We'll come back to the crime of aggression in a few seconds, a few minutes, but the crime, war crimes, crimes against humanity can be prosecuted, but it has to occur within the territory of a state that has signed up to the Rome statute or its nationals have committed such crimes. Now, the big question is concerning Russia. And you have heard that some charges have been brought against President Putin and against the Children's Commissioner. Because even though, so Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court. However, the Ukraine has signed a declaration of acceptance of the competence of the court in relations. to war crimes. And that's on that basis that the International Criminal Court, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has laid charges against President Putin and the Children's Commission, which I forget her name at the moment. But there's been enough evidence gathered by the team of prosecutors of the International respond before the court. Obviously, President Putin is not going to travel to The Hague out of his own accord. And so it means that these charges are out there. But theoretically, all parties to the Rome Statute, all states are part of the Rome Statute. If Mr. Putin happens to land in one of those territories, theoretically, their obligation would be to surrender him to The Hague. to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. I don't think that will happen, but that's in theory. The problem, the reason for which, it's a suggestive, then there is a crime of aggression. The problem there is that Russia not being a party to the Rome statute, not having accepted the competence of the court, the crime of aggression cannot be prosecuted. Okay. Putin cannot, the charges cannot be laid against President Putin on the basis of a war of aggression that is obviously started against Ukraine. I know it's a bit technical and probably a bit complicated, but the idea is really that in terms of bringing a case, Moscow, I mean, Russian Federation is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. And because of that, the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction. over the crime of aggression when committed by that state's national or on its territory. The only possibility would be to have the Security Council pass a resolution, but we know that Russia will veto it. So that's the question. Then even if there is competence for the court, the question is always what is the evidence brought by the parties before the court? It's not the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, it is a question of beyond reasonable doubt, like you would find in most domestic courts in terms of criminal trials. The International Court of Justice, it's preponderance of evidence, when the court believes that the state has produced evidence and that the rules have been broken or not by the other state. But the case of Ukraine, I want just to mention that what they've done very, very... cleverly has been that it's the Russian Federation that was accusing the Ukraine of having committed genocide, actually, of committing or planning to commit genocide. And so what Ukraine did was to bring the case before the court because Russia has accepted the jurisdiction of the court, and Ukraine says, well, we want the court to say whether there have been acts of the genocide. And obviously, Ukraine says, no, there have not committed genocide. So, but we will see what will happen once the case is heard by the court. And obviously many of these cases go before the international court of justice and take a long time before a decision is taken and because you go to a third party, you can never be sure you're going to win the case if you are a state, so you have to think carefully where to bring a case or not. As for individuals, well, there's certainly many more war crimes. committed than there are individuals prosecuted before the International Criminal Court. And because there's been so few and most of those who have been charged, have been prosecuted or are being prosecuted have often been from the African continent, which has led to some calls for condemning the court for bias against African states. So that is the... possible prosecution of President Putin is a welcome sight to see that the court is not only aiming at looking at what's happening on the African continent. But it is these both all these mechanisms, all these tools of resolving disputes, unfortunately, they tend to be very politicized. It's interesting you sort of say there are obviously some biases that have been pointed out and in cases of the UN and when we're talking about sort of votes on or against genocide, people are able to veto this. Do we find in international law that there are some countries that come out better than others? It sounds like some of these countries, for example, the Russian Federation is able to just sort of veto allegations against themselves. Is it sort of a system that's rigged? Like what's the deal there? Yes, I think to come back, maybe it was a question of Sehir was asking or hinting at earlier as well is that how do we change the current paradigm of international law? Well, the UN Charter, the Charter of the United Nations, which has all these powers of the UN and its agencies, is not perfect. amendments, you can amend a treaty. But so you could try and ensure that we get rid of the right of veto of those five permanent members at the Security Council. But for that to happen, they must also agree with it. The mechanisms of amendment of the Charter of the United Nations is not the best way to go. And also partly because when the United Nations were created, The idea was that we would not have wars anymore, that states would work well, that the United Nations would look into the causes of these problems. That's why you've got agencies and organs that look more into social and economic conditions. There's been creation even of environmental agencies, protection of refugees. The idea at the end of the Second World War was that we were creating a new order and that we would, for instance, Chapter 7 that provides possibility for members who use force in certain limited cases was going to be really the exception because we would not have wars anymore. And in fact, we can say that according to the charter, well, there's no more wars, are not fought, there are armed conflicts. And in fact, but then... Theoretically, that should not occur. The reality is quite different. And yes, the five permanent members and sometimes some of their allies or their like-minded states come out well because measures are not taken because of the mechanism that exists. The only way to change it is either to continue reforming the UN. Reforms have occurred over time, but the Security Council I know many of my students are hopeful, but I think certainly not in my lifetime. And I'm afraid even in their lifetime that will change. The other possibility, but then it's a greater risk. Well, I have a new paradigm. Get rid of the charter and all states sit down and try to organize the future legal order. But the problem is that it's sometimes better to try and improve a framework that might not be perfect, but works to some extent, then trying to start from scratch. So this is really the great problem about reforming the United Nations. And some reforms can work because all states have an interest. Getting rid of the right of veto for those five permanent members of the Security Council is not going to come easy. And And then the question you're asking, Jeremy, which is also very important is that we do have states that believe strongly in a rules-based order. That's one of the formulas that is used often even by New Zealand. You know, the New Zealand, that is always the stereotypes that we like to punch above our weight. But in reality, New Zealand is with other countries like Canada and many other states, are kind of middle power. They do not necessarily come across as hostile, even to states with which they don't maintain very good relations. But these are states that really believe that the best way for world relations, for international relations to work, is that we have a system based on respect for some rules, rules based order. And that's very often the intervention that the middle powers like New Zealand will, their intervention before international... forums, it's really along those lines. And I think for states that are not superpowers, that don't have major military or economic power, that is really what they need to work and lobby at the international organization, how to ensure that everyone might not always be happy with all the rules as we make changes, we work and we try to comply with those rules as much as that is possible. I know this is hopeful thinking, you're gonna think I'm a high on something at the moment, but no, I'm only at coffee this morning. And it, but it is, it is, it is, I think totally right. And students are sometimes quite pessimistic because they see this and, and what happens. And when you look at the news blogs, it is at the moment, especially difficult, but the international community has gone through difficult times. I'm old enough to have lived and having been at, was thinking. early high school or late elementary when the Cold War was in, well, in the early 80s, we thought a nuclear war was going to happen. We were able to avert it. I like to think that we're not going to see it now, but yeah, it's a difficult time. And for countries like New Zealand, they have to work with other like-minded states. And that's what they do, working with like-minded middle and small, middle power, small states to work together. to at least try to balance power by number, if not by military and economic power. That was really good. I've got so many questions. I think the one which I'm gonna ask first is, you mentioned, well, we spoke about bias in the ICC in terms of mainly people from Africa being brought in front of it. And you also said that Russia not being a signatory also does not help in the... the cases, although Putin is both there, there's an attempt to bring Vladimir Putin forward to the ICC. What happens for sort of non-state actors? So example, the Taliban, well, now they're technically a state actor considering they're the government of Afghanistan. But before that, same thing with ISIS, same thing with, yeah, if someone from, let's say, Russia's Wagner group committed war crimes, how would... How do sort of non-state actors who did not technically sign on to any of these things, where do they come under international law? Excellent question, Zahir, because if you remember at the beginning, I talked about how international law started from governing relations between states, more and more governing relations that included international organizations, but also individuals and non-state actors, non-state groups. That means that we not only as individuals, as non-state actors, not only do we have some rights in international law, but we are also under obligations in international law. As individuals, we should not be committing war crimes, we should not be committing crimes against humanity, we should not be taking part in genocide. And there are a lot of these treaties in international law, these principles of customary international law, that they are binding on... everyone. So if we take groups that we could, we would put under the chapeau of terrorist groups, for instance, you know, I'm aware that someone calls terrorists, someone calls freedom fighters, we're not going to, I'm not going to get into the sensitive issue, but as individuals, we cannot, I mean, most states are parties to their conventions against terrorism. So when you commit crime like a terrorist crime, well, you should, each state, when they become part of a treaty against terrorism, undertake to pass legislation at the domestic level that will, in fact, condemn such practice. So, as individuals, the members of ISIS, members of other terrorist groups could be prosecuted wherever they can be found. And if they commit crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and they are either nationals of a state that is a party to the Rome Statute, or they commit those crimes within the territory of a state party to the international criminal court, but then they can be prosecuted at the domestic level, and in some cases could even appear before an international tribunal. Now in international law... even though we have these groups, and even already in the Cold War, you have those groups working for self-determination, resistance groups, freedom groups. They are not properly actors as groups in international law. However, they do influence the evolution and development of international law. That's why states enter into treaties to condemn terrorism based on the actions that they've committed. So that is certainly one element. The other element is that obviously, well, the Taliban being also, in fact, the government of Afghanistan at the moment, they become kind of the... They are the government in place, but if they were, let's say, an opposition movement conducting... conducting conflict in Afghanistan. Well, then again, there are non-state groups, non-state actors are also bound by the principles of international humanitarian law. And principles that are important that everyone, whether it's the states, forces, whether it's individuals taking part in a group, armed group, that you cannot target civilians. unless civilians have taken up arms against you. They have to discriminate among targets. If the target is close to a civil object, or a civil or a civilian, they will, you have to think twice whether you're going to use force or not. You should not undertake a military operation if the incidental or collateral damage is so great that... Actually, they should not have undertaken such action. So individuals, part of non-state actors, do nevertheless have obligations on their international law. And when they are captured, as some members of ISIS have been captured, some members of the Russian-related forces in Eastern Ukraine have been captured when they've sometimes tried to escape to Western Europe. There's a case like... There's been cases, for instance, also taken against individuals of committed crimes in Syria. I think there's been a case in Germany. There's been there's other cases going on in Europe. So these individuals commit crimes that are considered so important and that all states have and should have an obligation to try to do their best to bring them to justice. That even if the comments on being committed on the territory of the state. the state might have the jurisdiction to prosecute the individuals. So no, state groups are not, or any individuals, we are not immune from prosecution for some violations of international law we undertake, or we are complicit. That's really interesting because what was it? I'm coming back to the kind of bias thing and the thing which you said you wouldn't touch the one person's freedom fighters and other person's terrorists. You can see how certain I feel like African nations the most probably but then for example in Bangladesh in 1971. by Pakistan against Bangladeshi people and they were funded and supported by the United States and Richard Nixon. People can be like, they committed this happened, certain presidents of the USA in this case got away with it. I'm sure Stalin and Mao and all got away with a lot. Again, it comes to the bias of none of them ever being prosecuted. all too young, but the Khmer Rouge in the late 70s, when we were well aware in Western societies that the Khmer Rouge were conducting a genocide in Cambodia. And the, I can see the Khmer number one, Pol Pot was responsible. And we had that, yet it took a number of years before. that the government of the Khmer Rouge was really condemned internationally. When, between 75 and 79, I think it was probably more than a quarter of the population that was decimated. And when Vietnam forces entered Cambodia, well, they were condemned by in many circles. It is true that their intervention was partly because Cambodia had conducted some operations within Vietnam. But it shows, yes, that sometimes at the time, another example, we were talking about freedom, freedom fighter versus terrorist. Again, many of your listeners are probably too young to remember, but Yasser Arafat, Yasser Arafat was the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, was considered in many states, especially in newly independent states after decolonization, was considered as a hero. And obviously in many Western countries for a long time, it was considered as a terrorist. So yes, there is a political and then also, as we were already saying earlier, it's the fact that sometimes states don't want to condemn the action or exactions of some of their, what they consider allies in a region. And that can lead to such. incredible results. Unfortunately, politicians don't always think about the long-term consequences. And I would say, Saeir, I'm not an expert in dispute resolution, but something certainly I learned, even I remember as a young law student, was that even the way of how you resolve disputes, there's a very different approach in many Western societies as opposed to societies in Asia and Africa. Sometimes in the Western societies, I'm generalizing here, it's very caricatural, but sometimes there is the idea that, well, there is a breach of international law. You respond in that way, or if you have to protect your allies at any cost. There's not always this idea of sitting down and seeing how to best resolve disputes with the long term vision. And I think that in terms of dispute resolution in traditional societies in Africa, In Asia, they are much better at that than Western societies. And Western societies, then sometimes Western governments tend to have a very short-sighted vision. They think that they should protect this or that regime at almost any cost. And that then leads to obviously a backlash. So that is really... And obviously politics comes in the way often, and even to this day. I think the big difference though between my young days during the Cold War, which was very much bipolar between East and West, and you have also you have that North-South divide, but many of these states in what is nowadays we often call it the global South, were really in early stages of development, but really it was bipolar. What we see now is that it's a multipolar polarized world. If you look at even the vetoes on Gaza that China and Russia have passed, if you look as well at the reaction to the sanctions taken by some Western states against Russia as compared to the way Russia is still doing business with other countries, I think with India. What I see as a difficulty for international law is the fact that these alliances are... no more straightforward. They are very much based on subject matter. And the question is as well, that as I come back to what I was making before, bringing a state before a court or a tribunal, it's a lot of costs. And not only economic costs, that's only it's long, the process can be long and drawn out quite a lot. But then it's also what does it say about the future of relations between those states. No, that makes sense. Another one which mentioned, I know it's not nearly in the same league, but Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist for ages, even post presidency, wasn't he? Yeah, that's certainly the best example. He went from being considered in some circles, he was considered as a hero. Someone who was put in jail because he was attracted to an And by the early 1990s, he was freed and then became president of South Africa. And so yes, it is quite interesting, all these contradictions that the system, that the international system has. Should we now talk about the actual laws around armed conflict? I know you mentioned the Geneva Convention, but I remember you saying the 1800s. So has this been a moving document? Because you also then mentioned that we have the genocide laws from 1948. So could you give us a background into specifically armed conflict and we can spend the rest, I know how far on that. So the law firm conflict is the appellation, the older expression is used often in military circles or alteration laws, laws of war, law firm conflict. And it is very much today considered the same as international humanitarian law, which will be much more used by the international committee of the Red Cross by non-government, non-governmental organizations that deal with looking after people who are victims during armed conflict. So the body of law that is lawful, it's a specialized body of international law. It governs, nowadays, there's been since the 20th century, kind of two main areas. One looks very much at the force and means and methods and some non-state actors can use during an armed conflict. And another body of rules looks more at the treatment of those who are no more taking part in armed conflict or are not taking part in armed conflict. We're talking about fighters and soldiers that have been injured, have been captured, and civilians who are not taking part in an armed conflict. So I would say the older... rules related to means and methods of warfare. For instance, means is the kind of weapons. Already by 1868, we were trying to ban or say, so not in a treaty, but in a declaration at the conference in St. Petersburg, took the position that some projectiles should not be used because they really generated unnecessary suffering. And we're talking 1868. And 1864 was also the fact that the first Geneva Convention. So the Geneva Conventions have increased with time, but in 1864, imagine we're talking a long time ago, a number of states sat down and agreed to rules that should happen when a soldier is injured, out that some medical teams should be able to go out on the battlefield and they should be able to care for the injured soldier, whatever the nationality, and they should not be targeted. So you have these already in the 1860s. And in fact, when I was saying earlier about common values that crystallize into, I would say, more rules and then into legal rules, around that time that we have the Geneva Convention 1864, where we have... the civil war in the United States between the forces of the Union, the Union forces and the Confederates. And a professor of law at Columbia, Francis Lieber, came up with a code of conduct for the armed forces of the Union, the Northern forces, that what they should and shouldn't do during warfare. And you have even in New Zealand, there is the, often we use an example. before a battle between British forces and Maori iwi or tribes at Gate Pa in the Bay of Plenty in the northern part of the North Island, where the Maori warrior chiefs decided to set a number of rules. What would happen if a British soldier doesn't have a weapon anymore? What if they take refuge in the church? What how to treat women who are captured? So you have on three different continents, similar kind of willingness to limit using the use of methods of doing warfare. And for me, it's beautiful because it shows, In those days, there was no internet. And there was, and still, and on different continents, you have... And you find similar ideas in ancient China, especially the teaching of Sun Tzu, a philosopher many, many centuries ago, you find in traditions in ancient India. So you have these rules. And by the 19th century, even though there will be other incredible conflicts, but you see that evolution. The body of rules of law from conflict or international humanitarian law really finds its roots in these movements. And by the 20th century, we have a number of treaties that will be signed. We have treaties that ban the use of biological weapons, chemical weapons. Now we have cross-derminations are banned, certain types of personnel landmines. And the Geneva Conventions have also increased. When you look at the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, you have a convention that deals with soldiers who are no more taking part in conflict because they've been injured. You have similar rules that apply to warfare on the sea. You've got a convention, we often refer to prisoners of war, the POW convention. What happens when someone is captured? They should not be just shot. They should be provided with shelter. They should not be allowed to go back and take up weapons, but they should be treated normally. And then you've got the convention that deals more with civilians. And the fact that it's civilians, yes, during an armed conflict, if the force of occupation can subject the local population to some restrictions, but there is a limit to it. You cannot just put in jail all those you perceive to be enemies of the of the concurring forces. So the Geneva Conventions have grown, and then by 1977, maybe some of your listeners will know that we have added two additional protocols in 1977. In fact, one is on international armed conflict, so when it's forces of two states fighting each other. deal with the people involved in warfare, but also the type of weapons targeting methods like discrimination of targets between military targets and civilian objects. And then we had a second additional protocol, slightly more contentious, that deals with internal armed conflict, non-international armed conflict, when it's forces of the state or fight between two insurgent groups. And in 2005, a third additional protocol was signed, which was because obviously the Red Crescent Society and the Red Cross Society, the work perceived, certainly the Red Cross are having some religious connotation. And a third emblem that provide immunity, a third flag that with a red diamond, which was in fact because of but based on some campaign by Israel. So we have additional protocols. So as you can see, there is, and if I come back to weapons, in 2017, there was the adoption by a number of states of the convention banning the use of nuclear weapons. What we see is that armed conflict does not mean that there's no law. governing the situation. In the old Roman days, one of the writers and philosopher of Roman times, Cicero, said that in war, the law falls silent. That's not the case. In war, human rights still apply. Law firm conflict does apply. And the problem, however, is that, yes, these violations occur and very few people are brought before tribunals. And that's really the question. the question, but also these rules, there are many of these rules and I think that without being contentious, I think it's quite well recorded by accounts from the Red Cross governments, the reality is that both in Ukraine and in Gaza, there have been most likely war crimes committed. When I talk about war crimes, we're talking about that military commanders have to decide when you have a target close to a hospital or close to a school, what is the best way of achieving the military objective? Sometimes it might well be, well, you'll have to wait. Sometimes you might have to take a decision. It's not a completely proportional analysis, but yes, what kind of weapons are you going to use? Are you going to do if you have a what you believe is the military base or a compound of the enemy forces, which are within 30 meters from a school where five days a week, you've got young people, young children there. How do you attain your military objective? You're entitled to complete your military objective, but it's, you don't have a free hand on doing what you want. And I think that, and so maybe at some point, yes, you want to limit your losses. but sending a bomber with a huge bomb or missile that is going to create incredible loss of life, casualties, destruction, well then you should think twice. So military commanders have an obligation, they are well advised in general by legal advisors and other advisors, and they take that decision on the basis of the information they have. So in the case of Gaza or Ukraine, it is possible that sometimes some bombings that create casualties might have been based on the fact that the information available at the time meant that the measures taken might have been proportional, might have been what would have limited casualties. But then on the ground, it's all based on how much information. and verifiable information you have. What is also another possible discussion has been about violations of the law firm conflict. There was a few months ago, a dam in Eastern Ukraine that was bombed by Russian forces and that created environmental catastrophe, flooding in some place in Eastern Ukraine. And there were a few commentators who said this was a war crime. Again, we have to be careful in the case of that dam. It is possible that it was a war crime, but dams are not protected, are not immune from attacks. What the additional protocol one of the Virginia Convention says is that nuclear plants, dams, dikes should not be targeted unless there is an imperative necessity to do so. So there's a margin of maneuver. I think the problem really sometimes when we look at it as members of the public, there are... losses of life, of infrastructure, that make no sense. But we have still to look at it through the lenses of the law firm conflict. It's like claims of genocide. That's again, first of all, genocide, it's very high threshold to say that someone had the intent to destroy a whole part or a whole group. And I think that many listeners will totally, truly, and genuinely believe a genocide has taken place or is taking place in either in Gaza or in Eastern Ukraine. But we have to look at it through the lenses of the law to avoid also that the law becomes a free for all. And I would probably say that in the case of Gaza, some atrocities do amount to war crimes. If I put all my hat as a law professor, I would probably say that there's not the intent on the part of Israeli authorities to destroy the Palestinians. And I would tend to think that certainly from an international criminal law viewpoint, I don't think at this stage that I have in front of me enough evidence to say that genocide is occurring. I know this would be contentious with some of your listeners, but there certainly are war crimes when some targets make little sense in terms of what they've achieved and also the presence of displaced persons. But for law firm countries, and the same thing in Ukraine, we have to look at evidence we have. I would be happy to change my position if I had more information that would lead me. In fact, international criminal law and international criminal court can only work on the basis of evidence. It's like any court of law. And there must be already to bring from a charge to be taken pre-trial. to be able to then bring it to trial, there must be evidence that there is enough to at least bring the situation to trial. It's not beyond reasonable doubt, but it must be a preponderance of evidence that yes, the case should proceed. Wow, I've got a lot in that. What's the, you have quite an optimistic view of this armed conflict, international law in general, which I think is quite sweet. I like the sort of idea that there are communities globally that can agree on these rules that sort of mean we have to treat each other as human. But then obviously there's exceptions. And we're sort of talking about the sort of events happening in Gaza at the moment. Who decides and what is the threshold for genocide, for example? When is the point? And what is the evidence? Do we have to see a bunch of atrocities sort of happen in order to pull somebody up on this? Where do you sort of draw the line of intent? I think that's really quite interesting. Yeah. Thank you for the... epithet suite because usually my students think I'm quite cynical. I was certainly born on the cynical side of town, but I tried to see that, that I tried to balance what's happening with, with the legal rules we have. I think all this shows how the law is sometimes inadequate and, and is often trying to, to run after events rather than preempt them. And I think you're right from the point of view of processes. As I said, it's very much based on the capacity to bring a case before an international or a domestic court. So most states do have legislation in place, like New Zealand does, the United Kingdom does, that if crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity have been perpetrated, even outside. jurisdiction of the state, they might sometimes be prosecuted. Now the question is that the best way of prosecuting someone who has committed such crimes is in the place, in the state where this has happened. In the sense that the evidence is there, witnesses are there, the problem though is that sometimes the infrastructure has been completely wiped out. So for me, the best solution is a local solution. Sometimes it cannot work. And that's why you've got sometimes the International Criminal Court, because International Criminal Court is really based on the idea that states who are willing and able to prosecute individuals who have committed such crimes should proceed with prosecution. The court will only kick in, if I may say, once it's clear that either a member state is unable or unwilling to prosecute. Now, this is not done just automatically. Generally, it's the office of the prosecutor that individuals will send evidence, groups. For instance, I know of some groups of young jurists or young law students who have sent information to the office of the prosecutor that there should be... some prosecution of, I don't know, for instance, directors of oil companies because of climate change. So the process is really done through the office of the prosecutor. Theoretically, the Security Council could also ask the court to deal with cases, but because of the right of veto is very unlikely. But then the office of the prosecutor really has to bring together evidence Do they have witnesses, testimonies? And then it's a bench of judges that will decide. And at the International Criminal Court, it's based on the idea that someone will have to be convicted only if there is evidence beyond proof, beyond reasonable doubt. Now, how does this proof come from? It's really partly, mainly from that evidence. And unfortunately, some who have not been... convicted or on appeal have been freed. There's a number of individuals in Democratic Republic of the Congo was mainly because the evidence is not clear enough or witnesses do not want to appear before the court. The fact that it is in The Hague far away makes it more complicated sometimes. Then the other solution though is that if these individuals who might have perpetrated such crimes are found in the jurisdiction of another state, they could be prosecuted before domestic courts. New Zealand, for instance, and I think our legislation is very much based on the law in the United Kingdom, allows even if someone has committed a war crime or genocide outside New Zealand, the courts could still issue an arrest warrant if the person comes within New Zealand. However, when the conduct has not taken place in New Zealand, but elsewhere overseas, it takes the consent or it takes the agreement of the attorney general before the case to proceed. If not, well, then the court will not entertain the case. Now in terms of a burden of proof or intent, apart from being that it is beyond reasonable doubt, well, for each crime there are elements that need to be fulfilled. For the International Criminal Court there is a publication that elaborates on all the elements of crime. So it's not based purely on the evidence, but that it needs to fill in to fill some categories. For genocide, it is probably one of the most difficult ones because there must be an in tend to destroy partially or in total a group. And that's a very high threshold. And that makes it quite difficult for a criminal trial. Now the case before the court, the International Court of Justice, which is a state versus state case between South Africa and Israel, I think what South Africa is pleading is that Article 1 of the Genocide Convention has been violated. With insight, I think that the better way for South Africa to have taken the case before the court would not have been under the idea that Israel has committed genocide, but maybe rather to look at the other obligation, the genocide convention, which is that states must not indulge in or allow genocide to take place. So there's a variety of subtleties in the process. For me, the best way, and I know I'm probably sounding overly optimistic, is to make sure that through the International Committee of the Red Cross, through NGOs, through hopefully young generations, we can work towards what New Zealand calls a rules-based order, where respect for rules that exist, mitigating the number of occasion where these crimes do occur. But at the same time, I think that we have to accept that prosecution in law subjects the situation to a very formal restriction and requirements. And if, for instance, there was a case before the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, where I think that what led to the acquittal of an individual, I think, on appeal was that I think the prosecution's basis was that the weapon used, which was some kind of rocket launcher, was not precise enough and the commander knew, but I think that they misled the court on the precision or the margin of error of the weapon. And based on that, there was enough, the court decided to acquit the individual. So it's what makes it quite... quite frustrating. And I would really say that even though we like to think we should go to the court, we should bring cases to the international court, international criminal court, but certainly in terms of realities that these cases take a long time. And when you go before a third party to decide, like the court, you can never be sure what will happen. might be better to try and prosecute within your own borders. And in other cases than war crimes, you try maybe to at the diplomatic level to sort out differences. Like for instance, even when you look at the case of these ceasefire resolutions, including some of them have been vetoed, probably if the P5 would have met a bit more and would not be in a situation of hostility as some of them are at the moment. Maybe we could have avoided the circus of having in the same week a resolution vetoed and then a resolution with one of the members. You can see pictures sit down not doing anything because it's simply abstaining. So I think that it is the problem with international law. It is really the enforcement and the efforts can be made at implementing it and making sure that the domestic law takes... into account international law that courts, governments take into account their international the international obligation of their states, but at the same time it's a victim of the same problems that all domestic legal systems have. I always use a very silly example for my students, but in New Zealand the crimes act does say that you cannot commit murder, yet we do have dozens of murders every year. And in the UK, it's the same thing. It doesn't mean that the system is corrupt, that the system is bad. So there are, I think the difference with international law is that it can lead to incredible consequences. And I have to say that in my lifetime, this is the second time only where I can... feel that even though I like to think there won't be a nuclear war, but it wouldn't take much for a leader to decide to press the button, certainly more than it's been in many, many years. And that's why the respect for international law is also, I think, for me, it's the way sometimes also negotiation or discussion must take place. If I take the attitude, and I'll take you, but you had the example of Libya in 2011, 2012, when the International Committee Security Council decided even to allow the use of force against Libya. That was after some declarations by the then leader, Mahmoud El-Kaddafi, that some rebels in the Eastern part in Benghazi were animals, they should be destroyed and all this. That led to... outbursts of emotions and led states to believe that there was an intervention that was needed. The Security Council passed a number of resolutions, including one that under Chapter 7, that allowed the use of all necessary means to force Libya to comply and to stop attacking its people, some people within Libya. And that led, and there was, it was not clear in that resolution that also meant allowing either troops on the ground or destroying actively air defenses of Libya. That's what NATO and some Arab nations decided to do. And Russia and China did not forget that. Russia and China abstained on their interpretation of what the Security Council resolution actually meant. So when the Security Council should have intervened in Syria, it couldn't. because China and Russia remembered what happened in Libya. And that is really, so sometimes the way, especially powerful states, how they conduct themselves, how they try to get other states to respect international law, that is important, because if it leads to hostility, if it leads to simmering tensions, it can then... exacerbate the situation. That's very interesting. When you said the Gaddafi thing, and how he referred to insurgents as animals and the Security Council passed a resolution for any means necessary, the argument can be made that when a few of the Israeli generals were saying the same thing about Palestinian people, that the same thing could have been done against Israel, but it wasn't for an Israeli. that kind of comes back into who your political allies are. But you see, in the case you raised, it was important. If you had members of the military of a nation start saying that we should destroy them all, they're like animals or dogs, then the duty on the government of that state would be to take action or suppress that kind of conduct. I think where, in my view, South Africa should have probably focused its energy in this case before the court would not be as much on genocide as the state not taking the necessary measures to prevent genocide. I know it's very technicality, but it does change quite a bit, I would say even the kind of evidence you have to procure in front of the court, the kind of accounts that you can use. Hmm. I guess that's similar to, I guess, murder cases and things where you talk about first degree, second degree murder. And if you chart someone with first degree murder and you can't prove it, they can't be convicted for second in the same case. In other cases, it needs to be brought up. So I'm guessing it's on the similar lines. It really shows how difficult the job of ministers of foreign affairs and especially, I would say, more importantly, those who work under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they have to have an excellent knowledge of international law, but they also need to know how to fit that knowledge within obviously the policies of the state. And that can lead to results that are sometimes, as I tell my students when I teach, is that obviously I teach them what the law should be or is on paper, but we cannot... For me, international law is a discipline that can only lead to tears if you have a black and white mentality that international law exists and you have to comply with it. I think that's where international relations are a very good complement to international law because international relations forces us as international lawyers to look at what are the causes of conflicts, what lead the state to act in certain circumstances in this or that way. I think that's an excellent marriage, international law, international relations, because we can then understand why sometimes a vital interest or a state's perception of an interest is that it's so crucial, so vital to the state that it means that they might, on a specific set of facts, decide that they have no other choice but to violate international law. The problem is when that violation becomes a norm rather than being an exception. I would just like to point out that we've been recording for an hour and a half, so we should probably get towards any final questions. Jeremy, did you have any? I think the last question I have is one that you probably have too, Sahir, and that is, again, touching on Professor Kosti's optimism for this situation, how do you have any thoughts on how the system could be fixed? Because we've obviously discussed about how flawed it is. Do you have any sort of idea of realistically how this could be changed for the better? Yes, I should always take my predictions with a grain of salt. I was, I always thought that the trilogy of the Lord of the Rings would be a big flop at the movie theaters when they came out. So take, take what I'm going to say with a grain of salt. There, there, the reality I think is that we, we have to hope that all conflicts do end one day. I, when I was young, I didn't think that the, the. Cold War would ever end. If I look at the situation in Gaza or in the Palestinian occupied territories, even only 15, 20 years ago, anyone coming up with the idea of a separate state or the two-state solution in many circles, we would have been condemned as being pro-terrorists. Things have changed. Even the United States openly now have said there's no other way but... to state solution in Palestine. I think that's, I like to think that it's, the evolution obviously law can only flourish if there is also political support. And I think that, I know when we look at the situation right now in Ukraine, I'm quite worried about how the Ukrainian forces have limited means at their disposal. If I look at Gaza with so many displaced persons that have really nothing to do with what has happened between Hamas and the military force of Israel and that are starving, it is for me shocking to see that. I already thought that in the 1990s, both in Europe and in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, the genocide, it's hard to see how have we improved the society compared to what was happening 75, 80 years ago. But at the same time, I like to think it's also the reaction that is changing. For Gaza, Western governments have not just remained silent. They have been critical of the attitude of the forces of Israel. Israel has a right to defend itself. There is a right of self-defense, but it must be exercised within the limits imposed by the law. And that has been quite clear. 30 years ago, that would not have occurred. For Ukraine and Russia, it is perplexing to me that all the Western nations are doing, yes, providing some weapons, but we leave people of a country which has a much smaller population have to defend itself against forces that are way more powerful. Though when I say I'm a bit optimistic or that I try to be optimistic is that even I know the president Zelensky and others have said that you cannot sign a peace accord, you cannot stop the fighting. But I just remind our listeners that sometimes even after a peace agreement takes place, you can still prosecute individuals who've committed crime. The best example is in the former Yugoslavia. The Dayton Accords in 95 or 96 saw in fact a kind of end of hostilities, yet well Milosevic, President Milosevic, Dr. Karacic were eventually, even though they were sitting at the table when these accords took place, yet were eventually prosecuted or died in jail before they were prosecuted. So I think that it's... It's important to see that there is always a tomorrow. Unfortunately, for those who suffer, it cannot come fast enough. And unfortunately, it doesn't always come. But we have to believe that, and I'm not here taking, I'm not being paid by the New Zealand government, but I think respect by majority of states of the rules-based order is the best way forward. And that is with that kind of diplomacy that we can. we can make advances and also to make sure that there are also the resources necessary in international tribunals to prosecute. If I take an example, the extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia eventually only made three trials because the process came too late and a few states gave money to this perpetrators. If you look at the International Criminal Court, the office of the prosecutor works with limited resources. It's for sure that they have to decide where they put their energy, which at the moment would be probably on Ukraine. And if they were to decide to look into a situation in Gaza, climate change will not be a priority. So what I mean is that it's also a question of states providing the resources. And at the end of the day, it's that the young generations are the ones that can bring a change in policies of government. And that's really, but yes, there's no magic rule about that, I'm afraid. But better respect by more states is the way forward. I think that's a great place to end because of course we can, international law is just not a one hour 30 minutes subject, it goes way longer. And there's so many more questions, of course, we would have liked to ask and discuss, but I think this is a good place to end and hopefully we can get Professor Kosti back on or some of the colleagues back on later to go into more details because I look forward to the comment sections already being like, oh, you didn't go far enough about this. You didn't cover that. I would be more than happy to come back. I could have spent hours. I found it very interesting. Thank you very much. And thank you for giving me time to speak with both of you. It's been a real pleasure. Thank you so much. Thanks, Jeremy, again, for coming on. Oh, thank you both. Yeah, it's been really enlightening. Very, very interesting. This is not something that I talk about on my day to day. So it's a nice, refreshing change for me. That's good. Um, Professor Kosti, the very last thing before we say goodbye is if you had any one piece of advice for our listeners to take home, what would it be? Read widely on current events. When I say widely, various sources, not only the sources that you trust, but also sometimes looking beyond to see what is out there to be well informed. I think. Good information is the best way to build good positions.