The Warring Visions of American Power | The Ezra Klein Show

What is the foundation upon which a new, What is the foundation upon which a new, more moral, more just American foreign more moral, more just American foreign more moral, more just American foreign policy can be built? Particularly after policy can be built? Particularly after policy can be built? Particularly after the devastation Donald Trump has wrought the devastation Donald Trump has wrought the devastation Donald Trump has wrought on international norms [music] and on international norms [music] and on international norms [music] and rules. One answer I'm watching a lot of rules. One answer I'm watching a lot of rules. One answer I'm watching a lot of people come to and particularly on the people come to and particularly on the people come to and particularly on the left is that international law, which left is that international law, which left is that international law, which has fallen into such disrepair, [music] has fallen into such disrepair, [music] has fallen into such disrepair, [music] can possibly be a source of renewal. can possibly be a source of renewal. can possibly be a source of renewal. that if America simply followed the that if America simply followed the that if America simply followed the rules that it helped write, then a much rules that it helped write, then a much rules that it helped write, then a much better world is possible. [music] better world is possible. [music] better world is possible. [music] And I've wondered, can international And I've wondered, can international And I've wondered, can international law, which has both been so weak at law, which has both been so weak at law, which has both been so weak at times and also been so inspiring at times and also been so inspiring at times and also been so inspiring at others, can it actually bear that others, can it actually bear that others, can it actually bear that weight? Linda Kinsler [music] is a weight? Linda Kinsler [music] is a weight? Linda Kinsler [music] is a fellow at Harvard. She's a contributing fellow at Harvard. She's a contributing fellow at Harvard. She's a contributing writer at the New York Times magazine writer at the New York Times magazine writer at the New York Times magazine and the author of Come to This Court and and the author of Come to This Court and and the author of Come to This Court and Cry: How the Holocaust Ends. She's done Cry: How the Holocaust Ends. She's done Cry: How the Holocaust Ends. She's done some incredible writing and reporting on some incredible writing and reporting on some incredible writing and reporting on whether or not what we're watching is whether or not what we're watching is whether or not what we're watching is the death or the renewal of the death or the renewal of the death or the renewal of international law. She joins me now. international law. She joins me now. international law. She joins me now. [music] Linda Kinsler, welcome to the show.

Linda Kinsler, welcome to the show. >> Thanks so much for having me. >> Thanks so much for having me. >> Thanks so much for having me. >> So, I want to begin with this video that >> So, I want to begin with this video that >> So, I want to begin with this video that Mayor Zoran Mandani released not that Mayor Zoran Mandani released not that Mayor Zoran Mandani released not that long ago arguing for the arrest of long ago arguing for the arrest of long ago arguing for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu. There is a reason Benjamin Netanyahu. There is a reason Benjamin Netanyahu. There is a reason the International Criminal Court issued the International Criminal Court issued the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest. As human a warrant for his arrest. As human a warrant for his arrest. As human beings, we have spent generations beings, we have spent generations beings, we have spent generations building a shared understanding that building a shared understanding that building a shared understanding that there are crimes so grave they offend there are crimes so grave they offend there are crimes so grave they offend all of humanity. Anyone with their eyes, all of humanity. Anyone with their eyes, all of humanity. Anyone with their eyes, with their heart, with their conscience with their heart, with their conscience with their heart, with their conscience should recognize the devastation he has should recognize the devastation he has should recognize the devastation he has wrought and understand that he belongs wrought and understand that he belongs wrought and understand that he belongs before a court of law. [snorts] It is before a court of law. [snorts] It is before a court of law. [snorts] It is clear that we do not have the clear that we do not have the clear that we do not have the independent legal authority to enforce independent legal authority to enforce independent legal authority to enforce this warrant. The federal government, this warrant. The federal government, this warrant. The federal government, however, does and I call on them to join however, does and I call on them to join however, does and I call on them to join the ICC and execute this warrant. And I the ICC and execute this warrant. And I the ICC and execute this warrant. And I want to be equally clear. Benjamin want to be equally clear. Benjamin want to be equally clear. Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcome in New York Netanyahu is not welcome in New York Netanyahu is not welcome in New York City, nor is any other war criminal at City, nor is any other war criminal at City, nor is any other war criminal at large. large. large. >> What did you make of that? Not just the >> What did you make of that? Not just the >> What did you make of that? Not just the decision to release it, which has been decision to release it, which has been decision to release it, which has been controversial, controversial, controversial, but the focus in it on the relationship but the focus in it on the relationship but the focus in it on the relationship between America and the International between America and the International between America and the International Criminal Court. [gasps and sighs] Criminal Court. [gasps and sighs] Criminal Court. [gasps and sighs] >> Yeah. Uh I mean I think first of all >> Yeah. Uh I mean I think first of all >> Yeah. Uh I mean I think first of all that was an immensely rhetorically that was an immensely rhetorically that was an immensely rhetorically powerful thing to do even in enunciating powerful thing to do even in enunciating powerful thing to do even in enunciating the crimes in Gaza that I think we the crimes in Gaza that I think we the crimes in Gaza that I think we cannot underestimate cannot underestimate cannot underestimate um just the kind of moral force of um just the kind of moral force of um just the kind of moral force of enunciating what those crimes were and enunciating what those crimes were and enunciating what those crimes were and articulating them precisely at the articulating them precisely at the articulating them precisely at the moment when they have been negated and moment when they have been negated and moment when they have been negated and denied in so many different places denied in so many different places denied in so many different places around the world uh especially in the

around the world uh especially in the around the world uh especially in the United States. I think you know what United States. I think you know what United States. I think you know what that did was call attention to the fact that did was call attention to the fact that did was call attention to the fact that international law is not separate that international law is not separate that international law is not separate from politics that it is something that from politics that it is something that from politics that it is something that we need politicians to speak about as a we need politicians to speak about as a we need politicians to speak about as a force that exists and can be used if we force that exists and can be used if we force that exists and can be used if we choose to use it. Um and so I think of choose to use it. Um and so I think of choose to use it. Um and so I think of course while he was you know he was course while he was you know he was course while he was you know he was calling attention to the fact that he calling attention to the fact that he calling attention to the fact that he doesn't have the authority to execute doesn't have the authority to execute doesn't have the authority to execute the ICC arrest warrant the ICC arrest warrant the ICC arrest warrant >> and America is not a signatory. >> and America is not a signatory. >> and America is not a signatory. >> Exactly. So there is, you know, but >> Exactly. So there is, you know, but >> Exactly. So there is, you know, but >> and the secretary of state in America >> and the secretary of state in America >> and the secretary of state in America wants to destroy the court. wants to destroy the court. wants to destroy the court. >> Halfway across the world, there's an >> Halfway across the world, there's an >> Halfway across the world, there's an institution that calls itself the institution that calls itself the institution that calls itself the International Criminal Court. Maybe International Criminal Court. Maybe International Criminal Court. Maybe you've heard of it, maybe you haven't, you've heard of it, maybe you haven't, you've heard of it, maybe you haven't, but chances are you don't know the names but chances are you don't know the names but chances are you don't know the names of its judges, of its prosecutors, or of its judges, of its prosecutors, or of its judges, of its prosecutors, or its president, and you shouldn't have its president, and you shouldn't have its president, and you shouldn't have to. But as we speak, the ICC and its to. But as we speak, the ICC and its to. But as we speak, the ICC and its friends are waging a war against our friends are waging a war against our friends are waging a war against our country, not with bullets or missiles, country, not with bullets or missiles, country, not with bullets or missiles, but with statutes and compacts and the but with statutes and compacts and the but with statutes and compacts and the force of so-called international law. force of so-called international law. force of so-called international law. >> Right. Right. No, there's all these >> Right. Right. No, there's all these >> Right. Right. No, there's all these reasons. It's like completely uh not reasons. It's like completely uh not reasons. It's like completely uh not actionable. It's a double-edged sword actionable. It's a double-edged sword actionable. It's a double-edged sword because on the one hand, you're calling because on the one hand, you're calling because on the one hand, you're calling attention to the fact that the ICC does attention to the fact that the ICC does attention to the fact that the ICC does exist, perhaps alerting to people to the exist, perhaps alerting to people to the exist, perhaps alerting to people to the fact that there is an arrest warrant.

fact that there is an arrest warrant. fact that there is an arrest warrant. And on the other hand, there's a danger And on the other hand, there's a danger And on the other hand, there's a danger because you're also calling attention to because you're also calling attention to because you're also calling attention to the posity of international law of its the posity of international law of its the posity of international law of its inability to work and this disjuncture inability to work and this disjuncture inability to work and this disjuncture between between between um you know this idea of arresting the um you know this idea of arresting the um you know this idea of arresting the imagery captured of Netanyahu being imagery captured of Netanyahu being imagery captured of Netanyahu being arrested in New York City versus the arrested in New York City versus the arrested in New York City versus the reality which is that that's never going reality which is that that's never going reality which is that that's never going to happen. I think that disjuncture is to happen. I think that disjuncture is to happen. I think that disjuncture is kind of dangerous for the perpetuation kind of dangerous for the perpetuation kind of dangerous for the perpetuation of international law. I think before we of international law. I think before we of international law. I think before we go further on this, when when we talk go further on this, when when we talk go further on this, when when we talk about international law, when you talk about international law, when you talk about international law, when you talk about international law, what are you about international law, what are you about international law, what are you talking about? talking about? talking about? >> When many people think of international >> When many people think of international >> When many people think of international law, I think they often are actually law, I think they often are actually law, I think they often are actually just thinking about criminal law, just thinking about criminal law, just thinking about criminal law, international criminal law, which would, international criminal law, which would, international criminal law, which would, you know, put which is how we get the you know, put which is how we get the you know, put which is how we get the arrest warrant for a Netanyahu or for arrest warrant for a Netanyahu or for arrest warrant for a Netanyahu or for Putin, for example. and they're maybe Putin, for example. and they're maybe Putin, for example. and they're maybe not thinking about international law at not thinking about international law at not thinking about international law at large where we have things that govern large where we have things that govern large where we have things that govern like you know aviation law across the like you know aviation law across the like you know aviation law across the oceans um international transactions oceans um international transactions oceans um international transactions things like that so formally speaking things like that so formally speaking things like that so formally speaking you're talking about the institutions you're talking about the institutions you're talking about the institutions that compose international law you could that compose international law you could that compose international law you could say the international court of justice say the international court of justice say the international court of justice the international criminal court uh the the international criminal court uh the the international criminal court uh the kind of many many webs of treaties and kind of many many webs of treaties and kind of many many webs of treaties and conventions, the United Nations. Um, conventions, the United Nations. Um, conventions, the United Nations. Um, these make up the edifice of these make up the edifice of these make up the edifice of international law when we refer to it.

international law when we refer to it. international law when we refer to it. Um, Um, Um, you know, but there's also a kind of you know, but there's also a kind of you know, but there's also a kind of more theoretical way of thinking about more theoretical way of thinking about more theoretical way of thinking about it as a kind of grammar as a language. it as a kind of grammar as a language. it as a kind of grammar as a language. And I think what, you know, there is And I think what, you know, there is And I think what, you know, there is this kind of romantic idea of this kind of romantic idea of this kind of romantic idea of international laws dispassionate. Um, international laws dispassionate. Um, international laws dispassionate. Um, you know, if you look to its origins, it you know, if you look to its origins, it you know, if you look to its origins, it came about when we no longer had, you came about when we no longer had, you came about when we no longer had, you know, the divine right of kings and we know, the divine right of kings and we know, the divine right of kings and we needed some kind of order to fill the needed some kind of order to fill the needed some kind of order to fill the void to, you know, to order a world void to, you know, to order a world void to, you know, to order a world without God and without divine right. without God and without divine right. without God and without divine right. And so now this system was created to And so now this system was created to And so now this system was created to kind of guide us through the the moral kind of guide us through the the moral kind of guide us through the the moral void of the world and the inevitability void of the world and the inevitability void of the world and the inevitability of conflict. And when it fails to do of conflict. And when it fails to do of conflict. And when it fails to do that, as it so often does, we are left that, as it so often does, we are left that, as it so often does, we are left questioning its its viability, um, its questioning its its viability, um, its questioning its its viability, um, its ability to persist in a fallen world. ability to persist in a fallen world. ability to persist in a fallen world. >> I think we're in a really strange moment >> I think we're in a really strange moment >> I think we're in a really strange moment in the foreign policy politics of the in the foreign policy politics of the in the foreign policy politics of the Democratic party. I think they're in in Democratic party. I think they're in in Democratic party. I think they're in in rupture. And one thing that I think is rupture. And one thing that I think is rupture. And one thing that I think is interesting about the way they have interesting about the way they have interesting about the way they have ruptured is that you have Joe Biden come ruptured is that you have Joe Biden come ruptured is that you have Joe Biden come into the presidency in 2021 and he into the presidency in 2021 and he into the presidency in 2021 and he promises to restore the rules-based promises to restore the rules-based promises to restore the rules-based international order.

international order. international order. >> I speak today as president of the United >> I speak today as president of the United >> I speak today as president of the United States at the very start of my States at the very start of my States at the very start of my administration and I'm sending a clear administration and I'm sending a clear administration and I'm sending a clear message to the world. America is back. message to the world. America is back. message to the world. America is back. The transatlantic alliance is back and The transatlantic alliance is back and The transatlantic alliance is back and we are not looking backward. we are we are not looking backward. we are we are not looking backward. we are looking forward together. looking forward together. looking forward together. >> And he believes in international >> And he believes in international >> And he believes in international institutions institutions institutions and international alliances with a force and international alliances with a force and international alliances with a force maybe that no other modern president maybe that no other modern president maybe that no other modern president really does. And then Ukraine happens on really does. And then Ukraine happens on really does. And then Ukraine happens on his watch and then Gaza happens on his his watch and then Gaza happens on his his watch and then Gaza happens on his watch. watch. watch. And now what I see many on the left And now what I see many on the left And now what I see many on the left saying is, saying is, saying is, well, what did you all believe in? well, what did you all believe in? well, what did you all believe in? Right? If your rules-based international Right? If your rules-based international Right? If your rules-based international order allowed this, if you protected order allowed this, if you protected order allowed this, if you protected Israel at the UN over this, if you gave Israel at the UN over this, if you gave Israel at the UN over this, if you gave the arms for this, if you are not a the arms for this, if you are not a the arms for this, if you are not a signatory, if you want to protect signatory, if you want to protect signatory, if you want to protect Netanyahu from this, then then what was Netanyahu from this, then then what was Netanyahu from this, then then what was this order? this order? this order? >> Mhm. Yeah. I mean, I think and you can >> Mhm. Yeah. I mean, I think and you can >> Mhm. Yeah. I mean, I think and you can almost see the move away from that almost see the move away from that almost see the move away from that commitment in the uh reluctance to use commitment in the uh reluctance to use commitment in the uh reluctance to use that phrase as the administration that phrase as the administration that phrase as the administration progress, right? We get fewer and fewer progress, right? We get fewer and fewer progress, right? We get fewer and fewer invocations of the rules-based invocations of the rules-based invocations of the rules-based international order. we get, you know, international order. we get, you know, international order. we get, you know, extreme reluctance to use words like war extreme reluctance to use words like war extreme reluctance to use words like war crimes and things of that nature. Um I crimes and things of that nature. Um I crimes and things of that nature. Um I think there's also you know this think there's also you know this think there's also you know this nostalgia I suppose that for the very nostalgia I suppose that for the very nostalgia I suppose that for the very fleeting moment of liberal peace that fleeting moment of liberal peace that fleeting moment of liberal peace that came after the cold war you know this came after the cold war you know this came after the cold war you know this moment of US hijgemony when you did have moment of US hijgemony when you did have moment of US hijgemony when you did have the ICC created you had this um real

the ICC created you had this um real the ICC created you had this um real feeling that international law could be feeling that international law could be feeling that international law could be upheld by upheld by upheld by American strength alone and of course we American strength alone and of course we American strength alone and of course we know we now live in the ruins of that know we now live in the ruins of that know we now live in the ruins of that vision. Let me give voice to the vision. Let me give voice to the vision. Let me give voice to the discomfort I've heard from it on the discomfort I've heard from it on the discomfort I've heard from it on the other side which is a lot of you know other side which is a lot of you know other side which is a lot of you know Jews I know supporters of Israel I know Jews I know supporters of Israel I know Jews I know supporters of Israel I know one thing I hear them ask a lot is why one thing I hear them ask a lot is why one thing I hear them ask a lot is why is Israel and Gaza the center of all is Israel and Gaza the center of all is Israel and Gaza the center of all this this this >> there is this sense that Israel has >> there is this sense that Israel has >> there is this sense that Israel has become the locust become the locust become the locust >> of all this ferment I mean you've >> of all this ferment I mean you've >> of all this ferment I mean you've written pieces you know reviewing books written pieces you know reviewing books written pieces you know reviewing books about how you know Israel uh it's you about how you know Israel uh it's you about how you know Israel uh it's you know assault on Gaza war in Gaza after know assault on Gaza war in Gaza after know assault on Gaza war in Gaza after October 7th will now sit in historical October 7th will now sit in historical October 7th will now sit in historical memory the way the Holocaust does that memory the way the Holocaust does that memory the way the Holocaust does that it'll be another moment of sort of a it'll be another moment of sort of a it'll be another moment of sort of a historical turn historical turn historical turn >> right >> right >> right >> and you know what I hear people say is >> and you know what I hear people say is >> and you know what I hear people say is why Israel not Sudan not Syria not even why Israel not Sudan not Syria not even why Israel not Sudan not Syria not even Russia why is there this much focus on Russia why is there this much focus on Russia why is there this much focus on this country and its particular this country and its particular this country and its particular conflicts and wars conflicts and wars conflicts and wars >> well the apparent answer to that is that >> well the apparent answer to that is that >> well the apparent answer to that is that Israel is the closest United States ally Israel is the closest United States ally Israel is the closest United States ally and Russia is not, for example. Um, and and Russia is not, for example. Um, and and Russia is not, for example. Um, and I think but I I I don't think it's fair I think but I I I don't think it's fair I think but I I I don't think it's fair to say that these same questions don't to say that these same questions don't to say that these same questions don't come up when we think about, you know, come up when we think about, you know, come up when we think about, you know, Vladimir Putin is also wanted by the Vladimir Putin is also wanted by the Vladimir Putin is also wanted by the ICC. Um, and I think we see similar ICC. Um, and I think we see similar ICC. Um, and I think we see similar behavior of by our, you know, friendly behavior of by our, you know, friendly behavior of by our, you know, friendly nations that don't want to arrest him if nations that don't want to arrest him if nations that don't want to arrest him if he comes onto their territory, you know.

he comes onto their territory, you know. he comes onto their territory, you know. And one legal scholar said, "It's it's And one legal scholar said, "It's it's And one legal scholar said, "It's it's all very well to say that you uphold the all very well to say that you uphold the all very well to say that you uphold the values of international law, but that values of international law, but that values of international law, but that doesn't mean you have to invite Putin to doesn't mean you have to invite Putin to doesn't mean you have to invite Putin to come shopping in Paris." You know, there come shopping in Paris." You know, there come shopping in Paris." You know, there is this kind of um double speak when it is this kind of um double speak when it is this kind of um double speak when it comes to these advanced values. And I comes to these advanced values. And I comes to these advanced values. And I think, you know, but I think what the think, you know, but I think what the think, you know, but I think what the war in Gaza it it it imp the United war in Gaza it it it imp the United war in Gaza it it it imp the United States is implicated in that in a States is implicated in that in a States is implicated in that in a different way. different way. different way. >> I think foreign policy on the left, the >> I think foreign policy on the left, the >> I think foreign policy on the left, the response of foreign policy, and here I response of foreign policy, and here I response of foreign policy, and here I don't mean the democratic socialist don't mean the democratic socialist don't mean the democratic socialist left. I mean like the broad tent of the left. I mean like the broad tent of the left. I mean like the broad tent of the Democratic party including you know Democratic party including you know Democratic party including you know moderates, leftists, all these folks. moderates, leftists, all these folks. moderates, leftists, all these folks. >> I think what comes next is very >> I think what comes next is very >> I think what comes next is very unsettled after the failures of the unsettled after the failures of the unsettled after the failures of the Biden era or what are perceived as the Biden era or what are perceived as the Biden era or what are perceived as the failures of the Biden era. what I failures of the Biden era. what I failures of the Biden era. what I perceive to be the failures of the Biden perceive to be the failures of the Biden perceive to be the failures of the Biden era and of course then the just wanting era and of course then the just wanting era and of course then the just wanting >> corruption and aggression and >> corruption and aggression and >> corruption and aggression and unilateralism of the Trump era where unilateralism of the Trump era where unilateralism of the Trump era where it's like if we want Maduro we just go it's like if we want Maduro we just go it's like if we want Maduro we just go in and take him in and take him in and take him and one thing I see people trying to and one thing I see people trying to and one thing I see people trying to explore is could the next move just be explore is could the next move just be explore is could the next move just be follow the rules so Abdullah sayed who's follow the rules so Abdullah sayed who's follow the rules so Abdullah sayed who's now the Democratic uh nominee for Senate now the Democratic uh nominee for Senate now the Democratic uh nominee for Senate in Michigan he was asked asked uh in a in Michigan he was asked asked uh in a in Michigan he was asked asked uh in a newspaper kind of editorial board newspaper kind of editorial board newspaper kind of editorial board interview how he would make decisions interview how he would make decisions interview how he would make decisions about military aid and getting into about military aid and getting into about military aid and getting into conflicts and his answer was quote conflicts and his answer was quote conflicts and his answer was quote international law. I believe we ought to international law. I believe we ought to international law. I believe we ought to be first among equals to enforce be first among equals to enforce be first among equals to enforce international law. We worked really hard international law. We worked really hard international law. We worked really hard after the worst world war in human after the worst world war in human after the worst world war in human history to build all these institutions

history to build all these institutions history to build all these institutions to build all these frameworks and then to build all these frameworks and then to build all these frameworks and then we became the chief violator of all the we became the chief violator of all the we became the chief violator of all the frameworks. So the thing I see sort of frameworks. So the thing I see sort of frameworks. So the thing I see sort of happening, you know, more on the left happening, you know, more on the left happening, you know, more on the left side of the party but not only is sort side of the party but not only is sort side of the party but not only is sort of saying the structure is already of saying the structure is already of saying the structure is already there. We just need to follow it and there. We just need to follow it and there. We just need to follow it and believe in it. believe in it. believe in it. >> And I guess my question for you as >> And I guess my question for you as >> And I guess my question for you as somebody who has really been covering somebody who has really been covering somebody who has really been covering the debate inside international law of the debate inside international law of the debate inside international law of what it can and can't do is what it can and can't do is what it can and can't do is >> does it have that strength in it? Can it >> does it have that strength in it? Can it >> does it have that strength in it? Can it be enough of an answer to these be enough of an answer to these be enough of an answer to these problems? problems? problems? >> Not in and of itself. you know, and I >> Not in and of itself. you know, and I >> Not in and of itself. you know, and I think the key um phrase in his response think the key um phrase in his response think the key um phrase in his response is first among equals, right? If the is first among equals, right? If the is first among equals, right? If the United States I I think at this point United States I I think at this point United States I I think at this point the ship has sailed and it's it's the ship has sailed and it's it's the ship has sailed and it's it's the extent of the destruction of United the extent of the destruction of United the extent of the destruction of United States participation in these States participation in these States participation in these international courts and institutions international courts and institutions international courts and institutions has been so grave. You know, of course, has been so grave. You know, of course, has been so grave. You know, of course, the rest of the world is now on notice the rest of the world is now on notice the rest of the world is now on notice that, you know, we can't be relied upon that, you know, we can't be relied upon that, you know, we can't be relied upon to uphold any commitments that would to uphold any commitments that would to uphold any commitments that would result. And that's always been the case. result. And that's always been the case. result. And that's always been the case. Um and I think you know to say that your Um and I think you know to say that your Um and I think you know to say that your policy is going to be international law policy is going to be international law policy is going to be international law that can mean any number of things right that can mean any number of things right that can mean any number of things right as we were just discussing. It can also as we were just discussing. It can also as we were just discussing. It can also sanction crimes. Um of course that's not sanction crimes. Um of course that's not sanction crimes. Um of course that's not what he means. But I think this idea what he means. But I think this idea what he means. But I think this idea that you can return to a world in which that you can return to a world in which that you can return to a world in which the United States is leading the charge the United States is leading the charge the United States is leading the charge to strengthen to strengthen to strengthen the rule of law on the global stage um the rule of law on the global stage um the rule of law on the global stage um given the situation we're in is perhaps given the situation we're in is perhaps given the situation we're in is perhaps farfetched. However, I think there's no farfetched. However, I think there's no farfetched. However, I think there's no question that the field is in need of

question that the field is in need of question that the field is in need of regeneration and a lot of people are regeneration and a lot of people are regeneration and a lot of people are calling for that. What form that will calling for that. What form that will calling for that. What form that will take, I think, is is the the crux of the take, I think, is is the the crux of the take, I think, is is the the crux of the problem. problem. problem. >> Well, let me let me make the argument >> Well, let me let me make the argument >> Well, let me let me make the argument for the rules for a minute to see how for the rules for a minute to see how for the rules for a minute to see how you respond to it. You know, one you respond to it. You know, one you respond to it. You know, one argument that uh I've heard people like argument that uh I've heard people like argument that uh I've heard people like Robert Wright make and others is that Robert Wright make and others is that Robert Wright make and others is that America would be much better off over America would be much better off over America would be much better off over its past 20ome years if it had just its past 20ome years if it had just its past 20ome years if it had just followed the rules if when it couldn't followed the rules if when it couldn't followed the rules if when it couldn't get UN authorization to enter Iraq. get UN authorization to enter Iraq. get UN authorization to enter Iraq. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> It didn't. [snorts] >> It didn't. [snorts] >> It didn't. [snorts] That I mean for that matter there would That I mean for that matter there would That I mean for that matter there would not have been UN authorization to enter not have been UN authorization to enter not have been UN authorization to enter Iran. And I think frankly the Trump Iran. And I think frankly the Trump Iran. And I think frankly the Trump administration would be better off if it administration would be better off if it administration would be better off if it had accepted that. had accepted that. had accepted that. >> Right. >> Right. >> Right. >> And so one argument that I take fairly >> And so one argument that I take fairly >> And so one argument that I take fairly seriously is uh I just did a big piece seriously is uh I just did a big piece seriously is uh I just did a big piece on on the Odyssey on on the Odyssey on on the Odyssey >> and that one value of international law >> and that one value of international law >> and that one value of international law to a superpower to a superpower to a superpower >> is actually that it ties it to the mast. >> is actually that it ties it to the mast. >> is actually that it ties it to the mast. That that is not a drawback. that in That that is not a drawback. that in That that is not a drawback. that in fact it is when we think we can do fact it is when we think we can do fact it is when we think we can do anything and should that we make our anything and should that we make our anything and should that we make our worst mistakes and international law and worst mistakes and international law and worst mistakes and international law and procedures and institutions procedures and institutions procedures and institutions and for that matter Congress impose a and for that matter Congress impose a and for that matter Congress impose a restraint restraint restraint >> absolutely >> absolutely >> absolutely >> that it would otherwise be easy to >> that it would otherwise be easy to >> that it would otherwise be easy to forget forget forget >> and more of our recent terrible errors >> and more of our recent terrible errors >> and more of our recent terrible errors seem like they have come from the seem like they have come from the seem like they have come from the absence of restraint rather than an absence of restraint rather than an absence of restraint rather than an excess of it.

excess of it. excess of it. >> Yeah. No, I think that's that's very >> Yeah. No, I think that's that's very >> Yeah. No, I think that's that's very fair and and perhaps true, although of fair and and perhaps true, although of fair and and perhaps true, although of course we don't know what the course we don't know what the course we don't know what the counterfactual would be. I guess I would counterfactual would be. I guess I would counterfactual would be. I guess I would say that the kind of legislative power say that the kind of legislative power say that the kind of legislative power of Congress is indeed really powerful of Congress is indeed really powerful of Congress is indeed really powerful and should be used as a mechanism of and should be used as a mechanism of and should be used as a mechanism of restraint. And I think we would not be restraint. And I think we would not be restraint. And I think we would not be better off in a world in which these better off in a world in which these better off in a world in which these international laws did not exist. Like I international laws did not exist. Like I international laws did not exist. Like I think the the what you could call the think the the what you could call the think the the what you could call the cynical argument that they have only cynical argument that they have only cynical argument that they have only made the word world worse is is unjust. made the word world worse is is unjust. made the word world worse is is unjust. Um and I think that's kind of not borne Um and I think that's kind of not borne Um and I think that's kind of not borne out in what we see. And I think people out in what we see. And I think people out in what we see. And I think people are better off for being able to name a are better off for being able to name a are better off for being able to name a genocide when it occurs and to claim genocide when it occurs and to claim genocide when it occurs and to claim human rights even in the breach, right? human rights even in the breach, right? human rights even in the breach, right? Even when they're not enforced. Um I Even when they're not enforced. Um I Even when they're not enforced. Um I guess what I'm saying is that it's not guess what I'm saying is that it's not guess what I'm saying is that it's not going to be sufficient just to say, "Oh, going to be sufficient just to say, "Oh, going to be sufficient just to say, "Oh, let's go back to that, right? because let's go back to that, right? because let's go back to that, right? because that world has gone and we need to kind that world has gone and we need to kind that world has gone and we need to kind of confront the new political reality in of confront the new political reality in of confront the new political reality in which these things have been weakened. which these things have been weakened. which these things have been weakened. >> One of the things that has been on my >> One of the things that has been on my >> One of the things that has been on my mind is I don't know I've become old mind is I don't know I've become old mind is I don't know I've become old enough now to have lived through a enough now to have lived through a enough now to have lived through a couple of cycles in foreign policy couple of cycles in foreign policy couple of cycles in foreign policy history history history >> and I moved to Washington 2005 and so >> and I moved to Washington 2005 and so >> and I moved to Washington 2005 and so obviously it's the post 911 period.

obviously it's the post 911 period. obviously it's the post 911 period. >> Yeah. But one memory that is occurring >> Yeah. But one memory that is occurring >> Yeah. But one memory that is occurring in that period and certainly uh the the in that period and certainly uh the the in that period and certainly uh the the years before 911 is the '9s years before 911 is the '9s years before 911 is the '9s >> when the feeling in some ways this is >> when the feeling in some ways this is >> when the feeling in some ways this is like the apex of the world quote unquote like the apex of the world quote unquote like the apex of the world quote unquote respecting international law respecting international law respecting international law >> and the big critique is that the UN and >> and the big critique is that the UN and >> and the big critique is that the UN and these systems were not able to move fast these systems were not able to move fast these systems were not able to move fast enough or clearly enough to prevent enough or clearly enough to prevent enough or clearly enough to prevent terrible massacres in Rwanda and terrible massacres in Rwanda and terrible massacres in Rwanda and Yugoslavia Yugoslavia Yugoslavia and that You know, I recently read uh and that You know, I recently read uh and that You know, I recently read uh George Packer's really fascinating, I George Packer's really fascinating, I George Packer's really fascinating, I really recommend this book to people, really recommend this book to people, really recommend this book to people, biography of Richard Hullbrook called biography of Richard Hullbrook called biography of Richard Hullbrook called Our Man, and it's all about sort of him Our Man, and it's all about sort of him Our Man, and it's all about sort of him like trying to work around this to stop like trying to work around this to stop like trying to work around this to stop massacres. And so, I remember a period massacres. And so, I remember a period massacres. And so, I remember a period when the people who understood when the people who understood when the people who understood themselves as humanitarians. themselves as humanitarians. themselves as humanitarians. Their big critique was that the rules Their big critique was that the rules Their big critique was that the rules just didn't work. It was too easy to tie just didn't work. It was too easy to tie just didn't work. It was too easy to tie things up in process and security things up in process and security things up in process and security council vetos. council vetos. council vetos. >> Yeah. and and sort of now the people >> Yeah. and and sort of now the people >> Yeah. and and sort of now the people humanitarians humanitarians humanitarians are sort of taking refuge in at least are sort of taking refuge in at least are sort of taking refuge in at least what international law is supposed to what international law is supposed to what international law is supposed to do.

do. do. >> So how do you balance that? >> So how do you balance that? >> So how do you balance that? >> Yeah. Well, I think you're pointing to >> Yeah. Well, I think you're pointing to >> Yeah. Well, I think you're pointing to this moment also when we started to see this moment also when we started to see this moment also when we started to see the split in the field between the split in the field between the split in the field between this perception of international law as this perception of international law as this perception of international law as something that indeed can prevent and something that indeed can prevent and something that indeed can prevent and punish the worst atrocities uh and punish the worst atrocities uh and punish the worst atrocities uh and something that actually provides license something that actually provides license something that actually provides license to states to commit those crimes by to states to commit those crimes by to states to commit those crimes by essentially codifying how they can do it essentially codifying how they can do it essentially codifying how they can do it within the realm of quote unquote within the realm of quote unquote within the realm of quote unquote legality. Um, and I think you know in legality. Um, and I think you know in legality. Um, and I think you know in the '9s you know how you have Kosovo the '9s you know how you have Kosovo the '9s you know how you have Kosovo crisis. crisis. crisis. >> United States forces acting with our >> United States forces acting with our >> United States forces acting with our NATO allies have commenced air strikes NATO allies have commenced air strikes NATO allies have commenced air strikes against Serbian military targets in the against Serbian military targets in the against Serbian military targets in the former Yugoslavia. former Yugoslavia. former Yugoslavia. >> The first time in its 50year history uh >> The first time in its 50year history uh >> The first time in its 50year history uh that the military action would be an that the military action would be an that the military action would be an offensive action and against a sovereign offensive action and against a sovereign offensive action and against a sovereign country. UN Secretary General Kofan country. UN Secretary General Kofan country. UN Secretary General Kofan while saying this may be a legitimate while saying this may be a legitimate while saying this may be a legitimate use of force questioned NATO's decision use of force questioned NATO's decision use of force questioned NATO's decision not to seek security council approval.

not to seek security council approval. not to seek security council approval. Under the charter the security council Under the charter the security council Under the charter the security council has primary responsibility for has primary responsibility for has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and maintaining international peace and maintaining international peace and security. Therefore the council should security. Therefore the council should security. Therefore the council should be involved in any decision to resort to be involved in any decision to resort to be involved in any decision to resort to force. You know the ICJ judge Hillary force. You know the ICJ judge Hillary force. You know the ICJ judge Hillary Charles talks about this moment as kind Charles talks about this moment as kind Charles talks about this moment as kind of formative for the perception of of formative for the perception of of formative for the perception of international law as this heroic international law as this heroic international law as this heroic endeavor and international lawyers endeavor and international lawyers endeavor and international lawyers coming to save the world, right? And coming to save the world, right? And coming to save the world, right? And that draws a lot of people to the that draws a lot of people to the that draws a lot of people to the discipline even then even after then it discipline even then even after then it discipline even then even after then it becomes very clear that that was a kind becomes very clear that that was a kind becomes very clear that that was a kind of extra legal operation. Um, and so you of extra legal operation. Um, and so you of extra legal operation. Um, and so you constantly have these moments of constantly have these moments of constantly have these moments of international law responding to crisis international law responding to crisis international law responding to crisis and then kind of confronting its own and then kind of confronting its own and then kind of confronting its own ruin and that you see that throughout ruin and that you see that throughout ruin and that you see that throughout the 20th century. the 20th century. the 20th century. >> Tell me more about what is something you >> Tell me more about what is something you >> Tell me more about what is something you just kind of touched quickly which is just kind of touched quickly which is just kind of touched quickly which is the way in which these structures of the way in which these structures of the way in which these structures of legality have also created ways to legality have also created ways to legality have also created ways to open legal space maybe for things people open legal space maybe for things people open legal space maybe for things people consider atrocious.

consider atrocious. consider atrocious. >> Abs. I mean I think you the most evident >> Abs. I mean I think you the most evident >> Abs. I mean I think you the most evident place you see this and perhaps that place you see this and perhaps that place you see this and perhaps that listeners would be familiar with is the listeners would be familiar with is the listeners would be familiar with is the standard of intent for proving genocide standard of intent for proving genocide standard of intent for proving genocide and if it falls short of that standard and if it falls short of that standard and if it falls short of that standard then you don't have the grounds for then you don't have the grounds for then you don't have the grounds for conviction on that conviction on that conviction on that >> right if their intent is to destroy >> right if their intent is to destroy >> right if their intent is to destroy Hamas even if what they do is genocidal Hamas even if what they do is genocidal Hamas even if what they do is genocidal from one perspective in theory the ICJ from one perspective in theory the ICJ from one perspective in theory the ICJ would not consider it would not rule a would not consider it would not rule a would not consider it would not rule a genocide genocide genocide >> exactly and so and the other example of >> exactly and so and the other example of >> exactly and so and the other example of this is you know if it's a you know, a this is you know if it's a you know, a this is you know if it's a you know, a quote legitimate military target, you quote legitimate military target, you quote legitimate military target, you can explain it away if you're attacking can explain it away if you're attacking can explain it away if you're attacking it um and avoid legal accountability in it um and avoid legal accountability in it um and avoid legal accountability in that way. And we've seen that uh that way. And we've seen that uh that way. And we've seen that uh qualification exploited all around the qualification exploited all around the qualification exploited all around the world and continue to see that world and continue to see that world and continue to see that happening. And so it's these very happening. And so it's these very happening. And so it's these very bureaucratic legalistic terms that when bureaucratic legalistic terms that when bureaucratic legalistic terms that when you hear them explained of as like this you hear them explained of as like this you hear them explained of as like this is why this doesn't qualify as genocide, is why this doesn't qualify as genocide, is why this doesn't qualify as genocide, for example, to people on the street, for example, to people on the street, for example, to people on the street, that just seems like a moral abrogation that just seems like a moral abrogation that just seems like a moral abrogation often times. Um, when we were prepping often times. Um, when we were prepping often times. Um, when we were prepping uh for this episode, my producer um Jack uh for this episode, my producer um Jack uh for this episode, my producer um Jack McCordic uh had me reread the speech McCordic uh had me reread the speech McCordic uh had me reread the speech Barack Obama gave when he was somewhat Barack Obama gave when he was somewhat Barack Obama gave when he was somewhat wildly given the Nobel Peace Prize like wildly given the Nobel Peace Prize like wildly given the Nobel Peace Prize like upon taking office.

upon taking office. upon taking office. >> And he gives this very strange like >> And he gives this very strange like >> And he gives this very strange like particularly in retrospect very playing particularly in retrospect very playing particularly in retrospect very playing both sides of the argument speech where both sides of the argument speech where both sides of the argument speech where he talks about himself as a sort of he talks about himself as a sort of he talks about himself as a sort of direct descendant of Gandhian of direct descendant of Gandhian of direct descendant of Gandhian of Gandhian and King Kingian non-violence Gandhian and King Kingian non-violence Gandhian and King Kingian non-violence and and that movement. I am living and and that movement. I am living and and that movement. I am living testimony to the moral force of testimony to the moral force of testimony to the moral force of non-violence. non-violence. non-violence. I know there's nothing weak, nothing I know there's nothing weak, nothing I know there's nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and passive, nothing naive in the creed and passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. lives of Gandhi and King. lives of Gandhi and King. >> But also that there is no peace without >> But also that there is no peace without >> But also that there is no peace without America's ability to enforce that peace. America's ability to enforce that peace. America's ability to enforce that peace. That treaties are not what ended World That treaties are not what ended World That treaties are not what ended World War II. That force was what ended World War II. That force was what ended World War II. That force was what ended World War II. As a head of state sworn to War II. As a head of state sworn to War II. As a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot protect and defend my nation, I cannot protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. be guided by their examples alone. be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is and cannot I face the world as it is and cannot I face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the stand idle in the face of threats to the stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. American people. American people. For make no mistake, evil does exist in For make no mistake, evil does exist in For make no mistake, evil does exist in the world.

the world. the world. A non-violent movement could not have A non-violent movement could not have A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. halted Hitler's armies. halted Hitler's armies. negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. leaders to lay down their arms. leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be To say that force may sometimes be To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism. It necessary is not a call to cynicism. It necessary is not a call to cynicism. It is a recognition of history. is a recognition of history. is a recognition of history. >> And he really gives his defense of >> And he really gives his defense of >> And he really gives his defense of America as like the indispensable America as like the indispensable America as like the indispensable superpower that is needed to make any of superpower that is needed to make any of superpower that is needed to make any of these ideals real. But then you're sort these ideals real. But then you're sort these ideals real. But then you're sort of [laughter] back in this like endless of [laughter] back in this like endless of [laughter] back in this like endless >> totally >> totally >> totally >> you know runaround of well what happens >> you know runaround of well what happens >> you know runaround of well what happens if you know you can't get the UN if you know you can't get the UN if you know you can't get the UN security council to bless your military security council to bless your military security council to bless your military intervention and you know against intervention and you know against intervention and you know against >> Russian aggression in Ukraine like >> Russian aggression in Ukraine like >> Russian aggression in Ukraine like >> yeah totally and I think in that speech >> yeah totally and I think in that speech >> yeah totally and I think in that speech he also I if I'm recalling correctly he he also I if I'm recalling correctly he he also I if I'm recalling correctly he speaks of you know the necessity of speaks of you know the necessity of speaks of you know the necessity of being both an idealist and a realist and being both an idealist and a realist and being both an idealist and a realist and of not committing to either one of those of not committing to either one of those of not committing to either one of those ideologies and letting it blind you ideologies and letting it blind you ideologies and letting it blind you perhaps and you know this idea of the perhaps and you know this idea of the perhaps and you know this idea of the kind of self-enlightened kind of self-enlightened kind of self-enlightened state hegeimon who you know follows state hegeimon who you know follows state hegeimon who you know follows international law. Of course, there's international law. Of course, there's international law. Of course, there's the question if you know he was making the question if you know he was making the question if you know he was making the argument we can't pretend that this the argument we can't pretend that this the argument we can't pretend that this edifice hasn't been upheld for the past edifice hasn't been upheld for the past edifice hasn't been upheld for the past 60 years without American strength and 60 years without American strength and 60 years without American strength and power and then of course now we are power and then of course now we are power and then of course now we are confronting a world in which we are no confronting a world in which we are no confronting a world in which we are no longer self-enlightened in that way longer self-enlightened in that way longer self-enlightened in that way perhaps and explicitly destroying all of perhaps and explicitly destroying all of perhaps and explicitly destroying all of these commitments or saying you know these commitments or saying you know these commitments or saying you know perhaps they're not irre relevant perhaps they're not irre relevant perhaps they're not irre relevant anymore um and we are I think you know anymore um and we are I think you know anymore um and we are I think you know in Iran we are seeing the implications in Iran we are seeing the implications in Iran we are seeing the implications of that abnigation and

of that abnigation and of that abnigation and >> you did this big piece piece for >> you did this big piece piece for >> you did this big piece piece for Guardian Long Reads. I think it was Guardian Long Reads. I think it was Guardian Long Reads. I think it was titled, "Are we witnessing the death of titled, "Are we witnessing the death of titled, "Are we witnessing the death of international law?" international law?" international law?" >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Tell me why. [gasps] >> Tell me why. [gasps] >> Tell me why. [gasps] >> Well, I think um that was brought about >> Well, I think um that was brought about >> Well, I think um that was brought about by the Trump administration's by the Trump administration's by the Trump administration's kind of uh explicit kind of uh explicit kind of uh explicit rejection and withdrawal of from these rejection and withdrawal of from these rejection and withdrawal of from these conventions and treaties and hostility conventions and treaties and hostility conventions and treaties and hostility towards all of these institutions that, towards all of these institutions that, towards all of these institutions that, you know, are the physical embodiment of you know, are the physical embodiment of you know, are the physical embodiment of international law. as we think of them. international law. as we think of them. international law. as we think of them. And I think, you know, with um Secretary And I think, you know, with um Secretary And I think, you know, with um Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing this of State Marco Rubio announcing this of State Marco Rubio announcing this campaign to dismantle the ICC, campaign to dismantle the ICC, campaign to dismantle the ICC, that has led people to say, "Oh, is that has led people to say, "Oh, is that has led people to say, "Oh, is international law a dead man walking?" international law a dead man walking?" international law a dead man walking?" Right? Can the US actually take this Right? Can the US actually take this Right? Can the US actually take this down? Um and the answer is it's not the down? Um and the answer is it's not the down? Um and the answer is it's not the it's not up to the United States to it's not up to the United States to it's not up to the United States to dismantle it. We are not a party to the dismantle it. We are not a party to the dismantle it. We are not a party to the ICC and we haven't been for some time. ICC and we haven't been for some time. ICC and we haven't been for some time. But what's happening is we're making it But what's happening is we're making it But what's happening is we're making it very very difficult for it to operate very very difficult for it to operate very very difficult for it to operate through sanctions on the sitting judges.

through sanctions on the sitting judges. through sanctions on the sitting judges. They can't, you know, use their credit They can't, you know, use their credit They can't, you know, use their credit cards. They can't use American cards. They can't use American cards. They can't use American technology. Uh they've spoken about this technology. Uh they've spoken about this technology. Uh they've spoken about this at length. It at length. It at length. It >> it's worth to say this for a minute that >> it's worth to say this for a minute that >> it's worth to say this for a minute that we are s we are treating the judges of we are s we are treating the judges of we are s we are treating the judges of the international criminal court like the international criminal court like the international criminal court like they are top members of Vladimir Putin's they are top members of Vladimir Putin's they are top members of Vladimir Putin's government. government. government. >> Yeah. We are are are using punitive >> Yeah. We are are are using punitive >> Yeah. We are are are using punitive tools to harm them for what? What is our tools to harm them for what? What is our tools to harm them for what? What is our what is our description of why we are what is our description of why we are what is our description of why we are sanctioning douly appointed judges of sanctioning douly appointed judges of sanctioning douly appointed judges of the ICC? the ICC? the ICC? >> Because of this perceived threat that >> Because of this perceived threat that >> Because of this perceived threat that the court poses to um I mean the the court poses to um I mean the the court poses to um I mean the language that uh rub the state language that uh rub the state language that uh rub the state department has used in its messaging has department has used in its messaging has department has used in its messaging has been about this perceived threat to been about this perceived threat to been about this perceived threat to American personnel and allies, right? So American personnel and allies, right? So American personnel and allies, right? So we could think of the arrest warrants we could think of the arrest warrants we could think of the arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Galant. But I for Benjamin Netanyahu and Galant. But I for Benjamin Netanyahu and Galant. But I think it's also important to to note think it's also important to to note think it's also important to to note that this isn't the first time that this that this isn't the first time that this that this isn't the first time that this has happened. You know, the under Bush, has happened. You know, the under Bush, has happened. You know, the under Bush, the United States nullified its the United States nullified its the United States nullified its signature to the Rome Charter, which is signature to the Rome Charter, which is signature to the Rome Charter, which is what uh established the ICC. And John what uh established the ICC. And John what uh established the ICC. And John Bolton at the time said that uh the Bolton at the time said that uh the Bolton at the time said that uh the United States would make the ICC wither United States would make the ICC wither United States would make the ICC wither and collapse. We will not cooperate with and collapse. We will not cooperate with and collapse. We will not cooperate with the IC. We will provide no assistance to the IC. We will provide no assistance to the IC. We will provide no assistance to the IC. And we certainly will not join the IC. And we certainly will not join the IC. And we certainly will not join the IC.

the IC. the IC. [applause] We will let the IC die on its own. After We will let the IC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the all, for all intents and purposes, the all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us. So this is, ICC is already dead to us. So this is, ICC is already dead to us. So this is, you know, Rubio might have said, "We're you know, Rubio might have said, "We're you know, Rubio might have said, "We're going to take apart the ICC brick by going to take apart the ICC brick by going to take apart the ICC brick by brick and and they might very well be brick and and they might very well be brick and and they might very well be committed to doing so, but but this is committed to doing so, but but this is committed to doing so, but but this is not a kind of uh anomaly." not a kind of uh anomaly." not a kind of uh anomaly." >> But what's sort of odd about it is that >> But what's sort of odd about it is that >> But what's sort of odd about it is that at the same time that we have this at the same time that we have this at the same time that we have this intense hostility towards it, you will intense hostility towards it, you will intense hostility towards it, you will also see them flip at weird moments. also see them flip at weird moments. also see them flip at weird moments. Like Lindsey Graham was very excited Like Lindsey Graham was very excited Like Lindsey Graham was very excited about the judgments rendered against about the judgments rendered against about the judgments rendered against Putin. Putin. Putin. >> Yeah. Senator Lindsey Graham says >> Yeah. Senator Lindsey Graham says >> Yeah. Senator Lindsey Graham says Russian President Vladimir Putin should Russian President Vladimir Putin should Russian President Vladimir Putin should be investigated for war crimes and he is be investigated for war crimes and he is be investigated for war crimes and he is urging the Senate to pass a resolution urging the Senate to pass a resolution urging the Senate to pass a resolution supporting an international criminal supporting an international criminal supporting an international criminal court investigation into Putin and his court investigation into Putin and his court investigation into Putin and his regime's quote war crimes against regime's quote war crimes against regime's quote war crimes against humanity and war crimes against the humanity and war crimes against the humanity and war crimes against the people of Ukraine and others close people of Ukraine and others close people of Ukraine and others close quote. I think it is in Americ's quote. I think it is in Americ's quote. I think it is in Americ's interest to make sure that Putin who is interest to make sure that Putin who is interest to make sure that Putin who is now has an arrest warrant issued by the now has an arrest warrant issued by the now has an arrest warrant issued by the ICC for his war crimes that we do not ICC for his war crimes that we do not ICC for his war crimes that we do not forgive and forget as a nation and we forgive and forget as a nation and we forgive and forget as a nation and we help the international community.

help the international community. help the international community. >> And Graham was no friend of the ICC. He >> And Graham was no friend of the ICC. He >> And Graham was no friend of the ICC. He was not saying America should become a was not saying America should become a was not saying America should become a signatory to it. But then he was saying signatory to it. But then he was saying signatory to it. But then he was saying well you know if we can arrest Putin for well you know if we can arrest Putin for well you know if we can arrest Putin for it we should. And you you sometimes get it we should. And you you sometimes get it we should. And you you sometimes get this movement where you know even inside this movement where you know even inside this movement where you know even inside the Republican party where there can be the Republican party where there can be the Republican party where there can be this remarkable hostility to the ICC this remarkable hostility to the ICC this remarkable hostility to the ICC that well when they like that well when they like that well when they like >> a ruling or they see it as useful and by >> a ruling or they see it as useful and by >> a ruling or they see it as useful and by the way from other countries too nothing the way from other countries too nothing the way from other countries too nothing Putin loves accusing America of like Putin loves accusing America of like Putin loves accusing America of like violations of international law that violations of international law that violations of international law that that there is this constant what is it that there is this constant what is it that there is this constant what is it hypocrisy is the tribute vice pace to hypocrisy is the tribute vice pace to hypocrisy is the tribute vice pace to virtue that happens in the way people virtue that happens in the way people virtue that happens in the way people talk about this. talk about this. talk about this. >> Yeah. And that is a way of using >> Yeah. And that is a way of using >> Yeah. And that is a way of using international law to serve the ends of international law to serve the ends of international law to serve the ends of power. Right. Of course, when it's being power. Right. Of course, when it's being power. Right. Of course, when it's being used against our enemies, we can say, used against our enemies, we can say, used against our enemies, we can say, "Yeah, great. Uh, issue the arrest "Yeah, great. Uh, issue the arrest "Yeah, great. Uh, issue the arrest warrant." And it's a different thing warrant." And it's a different thing warrant." And it's a different thing when, you know, in the history of US when, you know, in the history of US when, you know, in the history of US policy, it's a different thing when it's policy, it's a different thing when it's policy, it's a different thing when it's been wielded against our own um allies been wielded against our own um allies been wielded against our own um allies and personnel. And you know, famously, and personnel. And you know, famously, and personnel. And you know, famously, we have what's called the HEG invasion we have what's called the HEG invasion we have what's called the HEG invasion act that allows us the authority or that act that allows us the authority or that act that allows us the authority or that Congress has given the authority for the Congress has given the authority for the Congress has given the authority for the US to literally invade the Hague to US to literally invade the Hague to US to literally invade the Hague to extract US personnel who hypothetically extract US personnel who hypothetically extract US personnel who hypothetically would have been arrested by the court.

would have been arrested by the court. would have been arrested by the court. >> You read a a great piece about what gets >> You read a a great piece about what gets >> You read a a great piece about what gets called flexible realism, the Trump called flexible realism, the Trump called flexible realism, the Trump adversation's flexible realism, which adversation's flexible realism, which adversation's flexible realism, which >> I think in practice is a license to do >> I think in practice is a license to do >> I think in practice is a license to do whatever you want. whatever you want. whatever you want. >> What there's a German word you had in >> What there's a German word you had in >> What there's a German word you had in that piece. MK politique. that piece. MK politique. that piece. MK politique. >> What is mach politique? Could you define >> What is mach politique? Could you define >> What is mach politique? Could you define that for a second? that for a second? that for a second? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so so that comes >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so so that comes >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so so that comes from the scholar Patrick Porter who says from the scholar Patrick Porter who says from the scholar Patrick Porter who says this is the corrupt cousin of realism, this is the corrupt cousin of realism, this is the corrupt cousin of realism, right? It's when precisely when the right? It's when precisely when the right? It's when precisely when the restraints have been blown away, when a restraints have been blown away, when a restraints have been blown away, when a a power is no longer cognizant of its a power is no longer cognizant of its a power is no longer cognizant of its own limits, and that's when it really own limits, and that's when it really own limits, and that's when it really starts to make mistakes. And so, you starts to make mistakes. And so, you starts to make mistakes. And so, you know, everyone quotes Thusidities, you know, everyone quotes Thusidities, you know, everyone quotes Thusidities, you know, that the strong will do what they know, that the strong will do what they know, that the strong will do what they will and the weak will suffer what they will and the weak will suffer what they will and the weak will suffer what they must as this kind of creed of realism. must as this kind of creed of realism. must as this kind of creed of realism. And actually that's a warning that And actually that's a warning that And actually that's a warning that unrestrained power leads to the demise unrestrained power leads to the demise unrestrained power leads to the demise of a of a nation. And so I think that's of a of a nation. And so I think that's of a of a nation. And so I think that's what he's saying is there's this kind of what he's saying is there's this kind of what he's saying is there's this kind of idea that if you have a form of politics idea that if you have a form of politics idea that if you have a form of politics that's purely driven by strength and the that's purely driven by strength and the that's purely driven by strength and the will to power that is a quick way to will to power that is a quick way to will to power that is a quick way to reach your own demise.

reach your own demise. reach your own demise. >> And so you have that on the one side >> And so you have that on the one side >> And so you have that on the one side which I think is a little bit of what which I think is a little bit of what which I think is a little bit of what we're seeing play out in Trump's foreign we're seeing play out in Trump's foreign we're seeing play out in Trump's foreign policy. I don't think it has ended up policy. I don't think it has ended up policy. I don't think it has ended up being enhancing for American power but being enhancing for American power but being enhancing for American power but certainly their belief in it what they certainly their belief in it what they certainly their belief in it what they have articulated to me personally about have articulated to me personally about have articulated to me personally about their belief their belief their belief >> is that America had all of this surplus >> is that America had all of this surplus >> is that America had all of this surplus power power power >> that it was not using because it was >> that it was not using because it was >> that it was not using because it was tied up in all these international tied up in all these international tied up in all these international forums and agreements and they were forums and agreements and they were forums and agreements and they were going to use that power and America was going to use that power and America was going to use that power and America was going to exercise its will upon the going to exercise its will upon the going to exercise its will upon the world world world >> in a way that these weak need liberals >> in a way that these weak need liberals >> in a way that these weak need liberals and leftists were were not allowing it and leftists were were not allowing it and leftists were were not allowing it to to to And so then you see emerging on the And so then you see emerging on the And so then you see emerging on the other side something that would much other side something that would much other side something that would much more subordinate America's power even more subordinate America's power even more subordinate America's power even beyond where it was in you know the beyond where it was in you know the beyond where it was in you know the Obama or Biden or Clinton conceptions of Obama or Biden or Clinton conceptions of Obama or Biden or Clinton conceptions of foreign policy which is we should really foreign policy which is we should really foreign policy which is we should really follow international law. We should follow international law. We should follow international law. We should follow the rules if we want to do follow the rules if we want to do follow the rules if we want to do something even we think it is moral or something even we think it is moral or something even we think it is moral or right or good and we cannot get the UN right or good and we cannot get the UN right or good and we cannot get the UN to say yes to it or we can not get NATO to say yes to it or we can not get NATO to say yes to it or we can not get NATO to say yes to it or we cannot get to say yes to it or we cannot get to say yes to it or we cannot get Congress for that matter to say yes to Congress for that matter to say yes to Congress for that matter to say yes to it. we should not do it even if we find it. we should not do it even if we find it. we should not do it even if we find that frustrating.

that frustrating. that frustrating. >> And so it actually seems to me like the >> And so it actually seems to me like the >> And so it actually seems to me like the foreign policy visions that are emerging foreign policy visions that are emerging foreign policy visions that are emerging are actually much more polarized about are actually much more polarized about are actually much more polarized about how American power should be used than how American power should be used than how American power should be used than in other times at least in in other times at least in in other times at least in >> my time covering foreign policy. >> my time covering foreign policy. >> my time covering foreign policy. >> Yeah. I mean I think there is a debate >> Yeah. I mean I think there is a debate >> Yeah. I mean I think there is a debate about whether what you call about whether what you call about whether what you call subordination to international law is a subordination to international law is a subordination to international law is a limitation of power rather than an limitation of power rather than an limitation of power rather than an expression of it. Right. I think there's expression of it. Right. I think there's expression of it. Right. I think there's this this this you could and I think you know this is you could and I think you know this is you could and I think you know this is some realists express this view that some realists express this view that some realists express this view that international law can be a tool of power international law can be a tool of power international law can be a tool of power and that we are weakening ourselves when and that we are weakening ourselves when and that we are weakening ourselves when we do not subscribe to it and we do not we do not subscribe to it and we do not we do not subscribe to it and we do not play the game. You know you see China play the game. You know you see China play the game. You know you see China expressing power by trying to actually expressing power by trying to actually expressing power by trying to actually influence how international law is influence how international law is influence how international law is conducted and what definitions it uses. conducted and what definitions it uses. conducted and what definitions it uses. For example, one of the things that For example, one of the things that For example, one of the things that they're you know guarding is this um they're you know guarding is this um they're you know guarding is this um principle of sovereignty that's very principle of sovereignty that's very principle of sovereignty that's very very important to them. And so by very important to them. And so by very important to them. And so by strengthening the international strengthening the international strengthening the international commitment to sovereignty, which of commitment to sovereignty, which of commitment to sovereignty, which of course um has implications for their own course um has implications for their own course um has implications for their own policy, you kind of see them policy, you kind of see them policy, you kind of see them establishing themselves as the leader in establishing themselves as the leader in establishing themselves as the leader in the field in the way that the United the field in the way that the United the field in the way that the United States used to be.

States used to be. States used to be. They are kind of demonstrating how you They are kind of demonstrating how you They are kind of demonstrating how you can flex muscle by participation and not can flex muscle by participation and not can flex muscle by participation and not by absence. But to to push on that, by absence. But to to push on that, by absence. But to to push on that, China to the extent they are stepping China to the extent they are stepping China to the extent they are stepping into the breach left by America is into the breach left by America is into the breach left by America is pushing a more is pushing a vision of pushing a more is pushing a vision of pushing a more is pushing a vision of the rules that is less about the the rules that is less about the the rules that is less about the application of values or morality and application of values or morality and application of values or morality and more about the more about the more about the >> strength of territorial borders. >> strength of territorial borders. >> strength of territorial borders. >> But do they believe it? Do they believe >> But do they believe it? Do they believe >> But do they believe it? Do they believe in that with Tibet? Do they believe in in that with Tibet? Do they believe in in that with Tibet? Do they believe in that with Taiwan? Have they been all that with Taiwan? Have they been all that with Taiwan? Have they been all that critical of she's dear friend that critical of she's dear friend that critical of she's dear friend Vladimir Putin entering Ukraine? Vladimir Putin entering Ukraine? Vladimir Putin entering Ukraine? Certainly they say that, but when I look Certainly they say that, but when I look Certainly they say that, but when I look at China's behavior, I don't see at China's behavior, I don't see at China's behavior, I don't see >> at the very least it seems there's a >> at the very least it seems there's a >> at the very least it seems there's a large loophole for if you say those are large loophole for if you say those are large loophole for if you say those are not real borders, that's ours. Well, not real borders, that's ours. Well, not real borders, that's ours. Well, who's who's going to stop you? who's who's going to stop you? who's who's going to stop you? >> Yeah, totally. And I think what that's >> Yeah, totally. And I think what that's >> Yeah, totally. And I think what that's getting to is this this perception that getting to is this this perception that getting to is this this perception that international law is not completestist, international law is not completestist, international law is not completestist, right? Like it's full of loopholes. It right? Like it's full of loopholes. It right? Like it's full of loopholes. It is full of hypocrisies. you know when I is full of hypocrisies. you know when I is full of hypocrisies. you know when I spoke to John Mirshimer who's one of the spoke to John Mirshimer who's one of the spoke to John Mirshimer who's one of the most prominent realists in the country most prominent realists in the country most prominent realists in the country said of course you know we subscribe to said of course you know we subscribe to said of course you know we subscribe to international law when it suits us um international law when it suits us um international law when it suits us um and I think China is showing that also and I think China is showing that also and I think China is showing that also and that gets back to this question and that gets back to this question and that gets back to this question about international law as an expression about international law as an expression about international law as an expression of power and as a vehicle of power um I of power and as a vehicle of power um I of power and as a vehicle of power um I want to stay [snorts] for a second want to stay [snorts] for a second want to stay [snorts] for a second though on this question of perhaps though on this question of perhaps though on this question of perhaps sovereignty as a principle because one sovereignty as a principle because one sovereignty as a principle because one thing that I was thinking about as you thing that I was thinking about as you thing that I was thinking about as you began talking about China is that yes began talking about China is that yes began talking about China is that yes you can say that the way China frames you can say that the way China frames you can say that the way China frames its relationship ship to international its relationship ship to international its relationship ship to international law. Whether or not they really believe law. Whether or not they really believe law. Whether or not they really believe in sovereignty as maybe it looks to me

in sovereignty as maybe it looks to me in sovereignty as maybe it looks to me is questionable. Fair enough. On the is questionable. Fair enough. On the is questionable. Fair enough. On the other hand, some interesting convergence other hand, some interesting convergence other hand, some interesting convergence here. So Sam Mo and Azabali who are two here. So Sam Mo and Azabali who are two here. So Sam Mo and Azabali who are two scholars I have great respect for. scholars I have great respect for. scholars I have great respect for. Ozabali has been on the show. They wrote Ozabali has been on the show. They wrote Ozabali has been on the show. They wrote a piece in the Guardian about what the a piece in the Guardian about what the a piece in the Guardian about what the post American world order should look post American world order should look post American world order should look like. you tweeted it out, you know, very like. you tweeted it out, you know, very like. you tweeted it out, you know, very approvingly approvingly approvingly >> and as I read that, it was a much more >> and as I read that, it was a much more >> and as I read that, it was a much more parsimmonious, parsimmonious, parsimmonious, much thinner conception of like what the much thinner conception of like what the much thinner conception of like what the agreements should be that were really agreements should be that were really agreements should be that were really based on sovereignty. It was a sort of based on sovereignty. It was a sort of based on sovereignty. It was a sort of anti-war pact. anti-war pact. anti-war pact. >> So, can you maybe explain what their >> So, can you maybe explain what their >> So, can you maybe explain what their vision looked like and what you found vision looked like and what you found vision looked like and what you found interesting in it? Well, I think what interesting in it? Well, I think what interesting in it? Well, I think what what I took them to be saying is that what I took them to be saying is that what I took them to be saying is that we should almost kind of return to brass we should almost kind of return to brass we should almost kind of return to brass tax and kind of um tax and kind of um tax and kind of um not discount international law as a not discount international law as a not discount international law as a meaningful force in the world. And I meaningful force in the world. And I meaningful force in the world. And I think what I am concerned about is that think what I am concerned about is that think what I am concerned about is that when people see it not working um for when people see it not working um for when people see it not working um for example, you know, in Gaza or in Ukraine example, you know, in Gaza or in Ukraine example, you know, in Gaza or in Ukraine in its in its conspicuous failure to in its in its conspicuous failure to in its in its conspicuous failure to hold back these terrible atrocities that hold back these terrible atrocities that hold back these terrible atrocities that they will discount it entirely and and they will discount it entirely and and they will discount it entirely and and in my conversations with particularly in my conversations with particularly in my conversations with particularly American lawyers, you know, sometimes American lawyers, you know, sometimes American lawyers, you know, sometimes they say, "Oh, international law is a they say, "Oh, international law is a they say, "Oh, international law is a joke. It doesn't exist." And that is joke. It doesn't exist." And that is joke. It doesn't exist." And that is coming from the position of the hedgeon, coming from the position of the hedgeon, coming from the position of the hedgeon, right? The position of strength and right? The position of strength and right? The position of strength and power. It's not something that you hear power. It's not something that you hear power. It's not something that you hear in other parts of the world generally in other parts of the world generally in other parts of the world generally speaking. And I think what they were speaking. And I think what they were speaking. And I think what they were saying is no, it absolutely does exist saying is no, it absolutely does exist saying is no, it absolutely does exist and it should be preserved, but it can't and it should be preserved, but it can't and it should be preserved, but it can't we can't return to this kind of we can't return to this kind of we can't return to this kind of fantastical vision of a liberal

fantastical vision of a liberal fantastical vision of a liberal internationalism that has proven quite internationalism that has proven quite internationalism that has proven quite destructive in many ways. So you should destructive in many ways. So you should destructive in many ways. So you should go back not to where you have maybe go back not to where you have maybe go back not to where you have maybe criminal courts and all these different criminal courts and all these different criminal courts and all these different treaties, but just saying, and this is treaties, but just saying, and this is treaties, but just saying, and this is me characterizing what I thought I was me characterizing what I thought I was me characterizing what I thought I was reading, but I'm not a international reading, but I'm not a international reading, but I'm not a international lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, >> that the agreement should be we don't >> that the agreement should be we don't >> that the agreement should be we don't invade each other. invade each other. invade each other. >> Yeah. And and returning to the taboo >> Yeah. And and returning to the taboo >> Yeah. And and returning to the taboo against the crime of aggression and of against the crime of aggression and of against the crime of aggression and of conquest, right, which has been totally conquest, right, which has been totally conquest, right, which has been totally blown out of the water in recent years. blown out of the water in recent years. blown out of the water in recent years. But then I think you immediately get But then I think you immediately get But then I think you immediately get into this question which I take as maybe into this question which I take as maybe into this question which I take as maybe one of the fundamental questions of one of the fundamental questions of one of the fundamental questions of foreign policy of international health. foreign policy of international health. foreign policy of international health. What do you do when it is violated? What do you do when it is violated? What do you do when it is violated? What is law without the police? What is What is law without the police? What is What is law without the police? What is law without enforcement? law without enforcement? law without enforcement? >> I think there is a particular challenge >> I think there is a particular challenge >> I think there is a particular challenge >> that uh people of a liberal persuasion >> that uh people of a liberal persuasion >> that uh people of a liberal persuasion face right now face right now face right now >> and here I mean like broadly liberal. >> and here I mean like broadly liberal. >> and here I mean like broadly liberal. liberal in a way that, you know, unites liberal in a way that, you know, unites liberal in a way that, you know, unites left and moderates and just kind of left and moderates and just kind of left and moderates and just kind of people who believe in both domestic and people who believe in both domestic and people who believe in both domestic and international rules, international rules, international rules, which is all these systems from our which is all these systems from our which is all these systems from our courts to the UN, the ICC, courts to the UN, the ICC, courts to the UN, the ICC, we have these kind of beautiful values we have these kind of beautiful values we have these kind of beautiful values that then need to be made real in the that then need to be made real in the that then need to be made real in the world through flawed institutions run by world through flawed institutions run by world through flawed institutions run by human beings.

human beings. human beings. >> Yeah. And because the sort of the broad >> Yeah. And because the sort of the broad >> Yeah. And because the sort of the broad left has become the party that is in the left has become the party that is in the left has become the party that is in the institutions, right? People who believe institutions, right? People who believe institutions, right? People who believe in people become human rights lawyers in people become human rights lawyers in people become human rights lawyers and international law experts, they and international law experts, they and international law experts, they fundamentally believe in it and so their fundamentally believe in it and so their fundamentally believe in it and so their friends are in these institutions. You friends are in these institutions. You friends are in these institutions. You get really like caught in the get really like caught in the get really like caught in the questions of proceduralism. questions of proceduralism. questions of proceduralism. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But let me drop us like a level beneath. >> But let me drop us like a level beneath. >> But let me drop us like a level beneath. What are the values at the base of all What are the values at the base of all What are the values at the base of all this? When people were building this this? When people were building this this? When people were building this system, you've written beautifully about system, you've written beautifully about system, you've written beautifully about the history here. Maybe in a way that the history here. Maybe in a way that the history here. Maybe in a way that like almost now sounds naive. Like what like almost now sounds naive. Like what like almost now sounds naive. Like what were they trying to achieve? [snorts] were they trying to achieve? [snorts] were they trying to achieve? [snorts] >> They were trying to uh realize a liberal >> They were trying to uh realize a liberal >> They were trying to uh realize a liberal order in which [gasps] uh violence would order in which [gasps] uh violence would order in which [gasps] uh violence would no longer be the way that states would no longer be the way that states would no longer be the way that states would settle disputes, right? There was this settle disputes, right? There was this settle disputes, right? There was this notion of peace through law. Very notion of peace through law. Very notion of peace through law. Very romantic ideal. And you know the romantic ideal. And you know the romantic ideal. And you know the philosopher Judishclar writes about how philosopher Judishclar writes about how philosopher Judishclar writes about how this idea of law above all legalism this idea of law above all legalism this idea of law above all legalism became inseparable from liberalism.

became inseparable from liberalism. became inseparable from liberalism. [snorts] Um and I think what you were [snorts] Um and I think what you were [snorts] Um and I think what you were speaking about about this kind of turn speaking about about this kind of turn speaking about about this kind of turn to proceduralism to proceduralism to proceduralism um and this emphasis on on bureaucracy um and this emphasis on on bureaucracy um and this emphasis on on bureaucracy that often you know law gets so caught that often you know law gets so caught that often you know law gets so caught up in this and and it also makes it hard up in this and and it also makes it hard up in this and and it also makes it hard to hard to understand from the outside to hard to understand from the outside to hard to understand from the outside [sighs] [sighs] [sighs] that that is actually where precisely that that is actually where precisely that that is actually where precisely these like moral values that undergurted these like moral values that undergurted these like moral values that undergurted the project in the first place get lost the project in the first place get lost the project in the first place get lost and get drowned out. And you know I and get drowned out. And you know I and get drowned out. And you know I think often about the fundamental think often about the fundamental think often about the fundamental problem problem problem of all law not just international law is of all law not just international law is of all law not just international law is how do you how do you how do you uh make moral wrongs wrongs that exceed uh make moral wrongs wrongs that exceed uh make moral wrongs wrongs that exceed our capacity really to understand and our capacity really to understand and our capacity really to understand and certainly punish. certainly punish. certainly punish. How do you nevertheless make them How do you nevertheless make them How do you nevertheless make them legible in this extremely brittle and legible in this extremely brittle and legible in this extremely brittle and perfect system that we have created? you perfect system that we have created? you perfect system that we have created? you know and um there's this wonderful know and um there's this wonderful know and um there's this wonderful scholar Yosella Rogat who many years ago scholar Yosella Rogat who many years ago scholar Yosella Rogat who many years ago about the trial wrote that we've never about the trial wrote that we've never about the trial wrote that we've never escaped the problem of the orastia the escaped the problem of the orastia the escaped the problem of the orastia the escalist play that the submission of escalist play that the submission of escalist play that the submission of moral wrongs to a legal order and that's moral wrongs to a legal order and that's moral wrongs to a legal order and that's where we're constantly fighting this where we're constantly fighting this where we're constantly fighting this battle to end the cycle of vengeance battle to end the cycle of vengeance battle to end the cycle of vengeance and our legal systems are constantly and our legal systems are constantly and our legal systems are constantly showing themselves to be inadequate but showing themselves to be inadequate but showing themselves to be inadequate but also to hold this strange power that we also to hold this strange power that we also to hold this strange power that we don't always know how to use. I want to don't always know how to use. I want to don't always know how to use. I want to stay on this idea of the moral wrongs stay on this idea of the moral wrongs stay on this idea of the moral wrongs and what are we really trying to do with and what are we really trying to do with and what are we really trying to do with them.

them. them. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think that there is a deep ambiguity >> I think that there is a deep ambiguity >> I think that there is a deep ambiguity about whether the underlying values here about whether the underlying values here about whether the underlying values here were about a system in which certain were about a system in which certain were about a system in which certain things could not happen. things could not happen. things could not happen. A system in which there was redress for A system in which there was redress for A system in which there was redress for those things. those things. those things. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Or is what we're really in the end >> Or is what we're really in the end >> Or is what we're really in the end arguing about the historical memory of arguing about the historical memory of arguing about the historical memory of them. Right. And those are all different them. Right. And those are all different them. Right. And those are all different kinds of operations. And and and maybe kinds of operations. And and and maybe kinds of operations. And and and maybe the way I put this to put it in in the the way I put this to put it in in the the way I put this to put it in in the terms I think that we're really arguing terms I think that we're really arguing terms I think that we're really arguing in now. in now. in now. >> There's a question of, you know, Hamas >> There's a question of, you know, Hamas >> There's a question of, you know, Hamas attacks on October 7th. There's attacks on October 7th. There's attacks on October 7th. There's obviously a deep history in that obviously a deep history in that obviously a deep history in that conflict, right? You know, there's conflict, right? You know, there's conflict, right? You know, there's occupation. There's all there's a lot of occupation. There's all there's a lot of occupation. There's all there's a lot of legal rulings there. legal rulings there. legal rulings there. >> But within international law, like >> But within international law, like >> But within international law, like Israel was able to respond. I think the Israel was able to respond. I think the Israel was able to respond. I think the view is they've gone view is they've gone view is they've gone >> way too far into a kind of barbarism in >> way too far into a kind of barbarism in >> way too far into a kind of barbarism in Gaza. But what would like redress mean? Gaza. But what would like redress mean? Gaza. But what would like redress mean? But then I think there's also this But then I think there's also this But then I think there's also this question that is operating with question that is operating with question that is operating with particular force there of what is the particular force there of what is the particular force there of what is the meaning of it all. And I think genocide meaning of it all. And I think genocide meaning of it all. And I think genocide in particular, the reason that has been, in particular, the reason that has been, in particular, the reason that has been, you know, such a white hot debate.

you know, such a white hot debate. you know, such a white hot debate. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Is because if genocide is proven, >> Is because if genocide is proven, >> Is because if genocide is proven, >> it changes the meaning of Israel, right? >> it changes the meaning of Israel, right? >> it changes the meaning of Israel, right? It it changes it what it exists in as It it changes it what it exists in as It it changes it what it exists in as historical memory, right? The real historical memory, right? The real historical memory, right? The real punishment. Mhm. punishment. Mhm. punishment. Mhm. >> is what you mean. >> is what you mean. >> is what you mean. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Going forward, right? If Israel is a >> Going forward, right? If Israel is a >> Going forward, right? If Israel is a country formed out of genocide and then country formed out of genocide and then country formed out of genocide and then also one of the very few proven guilty also one of the very few proven guilty also one of the very few proven guilty of it, of it, of it, >> Yeah. [snorts] >> Yeah. [snorts] >> Yeah. [snorts] >> then what is Israel? But it it's really >> then what is Israel? But it it's really >> then what is Israel? But it it's really in a way I feel like so much of the the in a way I feel like so much of the the in a way I feel like so much of the the fights right now are like can you use fights right now are like can you use fights right now are like can you use international law to impose a meaning on international law to impose a meaning on international law to impose a meaning on things that have happened things that have happened things that have happened >> such that it exists as a warning to >> such that it exists as a warning to >> such that it exists as a warning to others. others. others. >> Absolutely. And I think you know the >> Absolutely. And I think you know the >> Absolutely. And I think you know the symbolic value of a genocide ruling in symbolic value of a genocide ruling in symbolic value of a genocide ruling in the ICJ cases about Gaza cannot be the ICJ cases about Gaza cannot be the ICJ cases about Gaza cannot be underestimated what that would do uh for underestimated what that would do uh for underestimated what that would do uh for everyone involved. And you know, I often everyone involved. And you know, I often everyone involved. And you know, I often think about um think about um think about um you know, the legal scholar Leila Sadat you know, the legal scholar Leila Sadat you know, the legal scholar Leila Sadat who's really pushing for uh a convention who's really pushing for uh a convention who's really pushing for uh a convention for crimes against humanity to make them for crimes against humanity to make them for crimes against humanity to make them legible before the ICJ to be able to legible before the ICJ to be able to legible before the ICJ to be able to bring suits before them that would bring suits before them that would bring suits before them that would correct this, you know, elevation of correct this, you know, elevation of correct this, you know, elevation of genocide as the kind of crime of crimes.

genocide as the kind of crime of crimes. genocide as the kind of crime of crimes. Um, but she she argues that the genocide Um, but she she argues that the genocide Um, but she she argues that the genocide convention has become a memorial to the convention has become a memorial to the convention has become a memorial to the Holocaust be precisely because it hasn't Holocaust be precisely because it hasn't Holocaust be precisely because it hasn't been able to be used and we only have been able to be used and we only have been able to be used and we only have one decision from the ICJ in the Bosnia one decision from the ICJ in the Bosnia one decision from the ICJ in the Bosnia versus Serbia case um that some people versus Serbia case um that some people versus Serbia case um that some people have pointed to as a precedent for what have pointed to as a precedent for what have pointed to as a precedent for what might happen uh in the litigation might happen uh in the litigation might happen uh in the litigation against Israel. against Israel. against Israel. Um, I think you're right. I mean, these Um, I think you're right. I mean, these Um, I think you're right. I mean, these are all questions about historical are all questions about historical are all questions about historical memory. And with this question of memory. And with this question of memory. And with this question of prevention, prevention, prevention, one of the sitting judges on the ICJ in one of the sitting judges on the ICJ in one of the sitting judges on the ICJ in his in one of his rulings at the very his in one of his rulings at the very his in one of his rulings at the very end, he said, you know, after describing end, he said, you know, after describing end, he said, you know, after describing all of the crimes that had been all of the crimes that had been all of the crimes that had been commissioned and all of the violations commissioned and all of the violations commissioned and all of the violations and he ended and he said, the court is and he ended and he said, the court is and he ended and he said, the court is just a court. You know, there is a limit just a court. You know, there is a limit just a court. You know, there is a limit to its power. Um, and I think we have to to its power. Um, and I think we have to to its power. Um, and I think we have to think about what happens outside the think about what happens outside the think about what happens outside the court of law, right? This this, you court of law, right? This this, you court of law, right? This this, you know, if we talk about only what know, if we talk about only what know, if we talk about only what international law can and cannot do, international law can and cannot do, international law can and cannot do, then we get right back into legalism, then we get right back into legalism, then we get right back into legalism, right?

right? right? >> Well, well, this to me is is one of the >> Well, well, this to me is is one of the >> Well, well, this to me is is one of the places where maybe this conversation is places where maybe this conversation is places where maybe this conversation is bearing more weight than it can hold. bearing more weight than it can hold. bearing more weight than it can hold. You know, you imagine a world where the You know, you imagine a world where the You know, you imagine a world where the ICJ ICJ ICJ rules rules rules that that that maybe entirely or at least for the most maybe entirely or at least for the most maybe entirely or at least for the most part that what Israel plausibly believed part that what Israel plausibly believed part that what Israel plausibly believed it was doing was destroying Hamas, which it was doing was destroying Hamas, which it was doing was destroying Hamas, which was embedded in civilian populations. was embedded in civilian populations. was embedded in civilian populations. >> And so what they did is the same either >> And so what they did is the same either >> And so what they did is the same either way, but it cannot be proven as way, but it cannot be proven as way, but it cannot be proven as genocide. genocide. genocide. So one, I don't think any of the people So one, I don't think any of the people So one, I don't think any of the people believe it's genocide would say after believe it's genocide would say after believe it's genocide would say after that, well, never mind. We went to the that, well, never mind. We went to the that, well, never mind. We went to the international courts. The courts ruled, international courts. The courts ruled, international courts. The courts ruled, you know, without fear or favor and um you know, without fear or favor and um you know, without fear or favor and um we're willing to say maybe that went too we're willing to say maybe that went too we're willing to say maybe that went too far, but it's not a a genocide. far, but it's not a a genocide. far, but it's not a a genocide. But on the other side, what people But on the other side, what people But on the other side, what people really wanted, I think, was not law, but really wanted, I think, was not law, but really wanted, I think, was not law, but leadership. leadership. leadership. >> That international law is not preventive >> That international law is not preventive >> That international law is not preventive in this way. And I think so much of the in this way. And I think so much of the in this way. And I think so much of the fury that is actually like splitting fury that is actually like splitting fury that is actually like splitting apart the Democratic party right now is, apart the Democratic party right now is, apart the Democratic party right now is, you know, it's such a strange thing.

you know, it's such a strange thing. you know, it's such a strange thing. It's like Joe Biden had few bigger It's like Joe Biden had few bigger It's like Joe Biden had few bigger supporters particularly at the end than supporters particularly at the end than supporters particularly at the end than Bernie Sanders and Okasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders and Okasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders and Okasio Cortez and that the the left that the the left that the the left >> and yet it was, you know, Biden's >> and yet it was, you know, Biden's >> and yet it was, you know, Biden's administration that in many that as much administration that in many that as much administration that in many that as much as anyone did allowed this to happen, as anyone did allowed this to happen, as anyone did allowed this to happen, emedded this happening. And I I I think emedded this happening. And I I I think emedded this happening. And I I I think that what is sort of operating but that what is sort of operating but that what is sort of operating but without people having exactly the way to without people having exactly the way to without people having exactly the way to say what it means in policy is they want say what it means in policy is they want say what it means in policy is they want to see leadership that would not accept to see leadership that would not accept to see leadership that would not accept that again and that it's not that it's that again and that it's not that it's that again and that it's not that it's bound by any one rule or any one law bound by any one rule or any one law bound by any one rule or any one law >> but that it is but like how do you see >> but that it is but like how do you see >> but that it is but like how do you see if there is agreement on morality if there is agreement on morality if there is agreement on morality because I think some of the split in the because I think some of the split in the because I think some of the split in the Democratic party is that it turned out Democratic party is that it turned out Democratic party is that it turned out there wasn't it turned out what some there wasn't it turned out what some there wasn't it turned out what some people thought was like unimaginable. people thought was like unimaginable. people thought was like unimaginable. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> And what other people thought was just >> And what other people thought was just >> And what other people thought was just part of war were different. part of war were different. part of war were different. >> Yeah. I think there is this >> Yeah. I think there is this >> Yeah. I think there is this unquestionable desire for leadership. unquestionable desire for leadership. unquestionable desire for leadership. And you know, I was even thinking about And you know, I was even thinking about And you know, I was even thinking about this um I think most people go about this um I think most people go about this um I think most people go about their lives and they're not aware of the their lives and they're not aware of the their lives and they're not aware of the ICJ and they don't think about it or the ICJ and they don't think about it or the ICJ and they don't think about it or the ICC for that matter.

ICC for that matter. ICC for that matter. Um but there were a few weeks when those Um but there were a few weeks when those Um but there were a few weeks when those proceedings were not only you know on proceedings were not only you know on proceedings were not only you know on the front page of the New York Times but the front page of the New York Times but the front page of the New York Times but also people were waiting outside the also people were waiting outside the also people were waiting outside the peace palace and the HG watching a kind peace palace and the HG watching a kind peace palace and the HG watching a kind of live stream waiting for a moral of live stream waiting for a moral of live stream waiting for a moral verdict that wasn't going to come at verdict that wasn't going to come at verdict that wasn't going to come at least certainly not on that day and as least certainly not on that day and as least certainly not on that day and as you say certainly not soon. Um I think you say certainly not soon. Um I think you say certainly not soon. Um I think you know it's not going to be salvific you know it's not going to be salvific you know it's not going to be salvific right whenever whatever judgment comes right whenever whatever judgment comes right whenever whatever judgment comes and whatever political resolution right and whatever political resolution right and whatever political resolution right whatever policy changes I think the whatever policy changes I think the whatever policy changes I think the democrats need to make and will make democrats need to make and will make democrats need to make and will make come of this uh will not [sighs] come of this uh will not [sighs] come of this uh will not [sighs] undo the the harm done. Um I think like undo the the harm done. Um I think like undo the the harm done. Um I think like this is when we start thinking about this is when we start thinking about this is when we start thinking about international law as a kind of tragic international law as a kind of tragic international law as a kind of tragic field. Um, field. Um, field. Um, and I think the kind of void of and I think the kind of void of and I think the kind of void of leadership that we are experiencing now leadership that we are experiencing now leadership that we are experiencing now is almost reflective of this inability is almost reflective of this inability is almost reflective of this inability to kind of articulate the tragic nature to kind of articulate the tragic nature to kind of articulate the tragic nature of it uh in politics because that's of it uh in politics because that's of it uh in politics because that's that's anathema uh to how we normally that's anathema uh to how we normally that's anathema uh to how we normally think about um the messaging that we think about um the messaging that we think about um the messaging that we want our politicians to advance. Well, I want our politicians to advance. Well, I want our politicians to advance. Well, I think and it goes to something you were think and it goes to something you were think and it goes to something you were saying earlier about why saying earlier about why saying earlier about why why in American politics, why in American politics, why in American politics, Russia's invasion of Ukraine Russia's invasion of Ukraine Russia's invasion of Ukraine and um Israel's reprisal in Gaza feel and um Israel's reprisal in Gaza feel and um Israel's reprisal in Gaza feel different.

different. different. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Because we were not able to stop >> Because we were not able to stop >> Because we were not able to stop Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We have Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We have Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We have certainly hindered it. certainly hindered it. certainly hindered it. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> But the difference is there isn't a >> But the difference is there isn't a >> But the difference is there isn't a feeling of complicity in it. And to some feeling of complicity in it. And to some feeling of complicity in it. And to some degree, I think that means a lot in degree, I think that means a lot in degree, I think that means a lot in politics, right? People have this politics, right? People have this politics, right? People have this question like, well, what is America? question like, well, what is America? question like, well, what is America? >> Now, I don't know. I I I I'm not 100% >> Now, I don't know. I I I I'm not 100% >> Now, I don't know. I I I I'm not 100% sure this is true because I think there sure this is true because I think there sure this is true because I think there is something about and has for a long is something about and has for a long is something about and has for a long time been something about Israel that time been something about Israel that time been something about Israel that attracts attention and interest. And, attracts attention and interest. And, attracts attention and interest. And, you know, I know people would say it's you know, I know people would say it's you know, I know people would say it's anti-semitism. I think it can be that, anti-semitism. I think it can be that, anti-semitism. I think it can be that, but I think it's also much more but I think it's also much more but I think it's also much more complicated than that. It has to do with complicated than that. It has to do with complicated than that. It has to do with ties and affinities. It's also comes in ties and affinities. It's also comes in ties and affinities. It's also comes in positive attention, right, where people positive attention, right, where people positive attention, right, where people have like a deep relationship to Israel have like a deep relationship to Israel have like a deep relationship to Israel um in America that they don't have to um in America that they don't have to um in America that they don't have to other countries. But nevertheless, that other countries. But nevertheless, that other countries. But nevertheless, that there is like a a a question of [snorts] there is like a a a question of [snorts] there is like a a a question of [snorts] what does it say about who we are? what does it say about who we are? what does it say about who we are? >> And what does it say about what our >> And what does it say about what our >> And what does it say about what our foreign policy is? And that feels like foreign policy is? And that feels like foreign policy is? And that feels like the the deeply unanswered the the deeply unanswered the the deeply unanswered question, question, question, >> right? And and >> right? And and >> right? And and I think you know we're kind of seeing I think you know we're kind of seeing I think you know we're kind of seeing that play out particularly if you look that play out particularly if you look that play out particularly if you look at Ukraine right now um where you have at Ukraine right now um where you have at Ukraine right now um where you have what was a war of you know is a war of what was a war of you know is a war of what was a war of you know is a war of self-defense kind of you know trying to self-defense kind of you know trying to self-defense kind of you know trying to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty that will preserve Ukrainian sovereignty that will preserve Ukrainian sovereignty that will certainly end if it does end if we can certainly end if it does end if we can certainly end if it does end if we can speak of an end in an unjust peace right speak of an end in an unjust peace right speak of an end in an unjust peace right it will be kind of negotiated settlement

it will be kind of negotiated settlement it will be kind of negotiated settlement we're already seeing that the terms are we're already seeing that the terms are we're already seeing that the terms are likely to be favorable to Russia Uh, and likely to be favorable to Russia Uh, and likely to be favorable to Russia Uh, and you know, in Gaza, you know, in Gaza, you know, in Gaza, the terms with which the Trump the terms with which the Trump the terms with which the Trump administration has kind of spoken about administration has kind of spoken about administration has kind of spoken about an end, bringing an end um to that an end, bringing an end um to that an end, bringing an end um to that conflict have similarly kind of almost conflict have similarly kind of almost conflict have similarly kind of almost completely discounted the sovereignty of completely discounted the sovereignty of completely discounted the sovereignty of the Palestinian people. And I think, you the Palestinian people. And I think, you the Palestinian people. And I think, you know, I've long been fascinated by this know, I've long been fascinated by this know, I've long been fascinated by this question of endings and how we now live question of endings and how we now live question of endings and how we now live in this era of of wars with no in this era of of wars with no in this era of of wars with no discernable end that make, you know, discernable end that make, you know, discernable end that make, you know, making these moral moral judgments and making these moral moral judgments and making these moral moral judgments and categories very difficult. categories very difficult. categories very difficult. >> What do you mean? We live in an era of >> What do you mean? We live in an era of >> What do you mean? We live in an era of wars with no discernable end. How how is wars with no discernable end. How how is wars with no discernable end. How how is this era different than what's come this era different than what's come this era different than what's come before it? before it? before it? >> I think, you know, well, and I I have >> I think, you know, well, and I I have >> I think, you know, well, and I I have written about how ceasefires have, you written about how ceasefires have, you written about how ceasefires have, you know, uh have become a replacement for know, uh have become a replacement for know, uh have become a replacement for lasting peace settlements. And I was lasting peace settlements. And I was lasting peace settlements. And I was really struck by this when as part of really struck by this when as part of really struck by this when as part of the kind of protests uh against the war the kind of protests uh against the war the kind of protests uh against the war in Gaza, the the kind of prevailing in Gaza, the the kind of prevailing in Gaza, the the kind of prevailing slogan was ceasefire now. And ceasefire slogan was ceasefire now. And ceasefire slogan was ceasefire now. And ceasefire now that's very powerful that stops the now that's very powerful that stops the now that's very powerful that stops the violence. You know, you know, you need a violence. You know, you know, you need a violence. You know, you know, you need a ceasefire first and foremost, but that's ceasefire first and foremost, but that's ceasefire first and foremost, but that's not the same as saying we are going to not the same as saying we are going to not the same as saying we are going to put a stop to this conflict. That is put a stop to this conflict. That is put a stop to this conflict. That is essentially saying we are going to stop essentially saying we are going to stop essentially saying we are going to stop it for now. Um, and you know, ceasefires it for now. Um, and you know, ceasefires it for now. Um, and you know, ceasefires almost always break down and it it almost always break down and it it almost always break down and it it almost kind of um serves as an excuse almost kind of um serves as an excuse almost kind of um serves as an excuse for um sidstepping the more difficult

for um sidstepping the more difficult for um sidstepping the more difficult political questions and moral questions political questions and moral questions political questions and moral questions that always come to light in these that always come to light in these that always come to light in these events. Why do you think that there's events. Why do you think that there's events. Why do you think that there's been this turn in international been this turn in international been this turn in international relations away from actual settlements relations away from actual settlements relations away from actual settlements and towards ceasefires and interim deals and towards ceasefires and interim deals and towards ceasefires and interim deals and and and kind of periods of quiet rather than big kind of periods of quiet rather than big kind of periods of quiet rather than big negotiated finality? negotiated finality? negotiated finality? >> I mean we're not we're no longer in this >> I mean we're not we're no longer in this >> I mean we're not we're no longer in this kind of uh there there are many kind of uh there there are many kind of uh there there are many explanations, right? There's it's a explanations, right? There's it's a explanations, right? There's it's a matter of political will. It's also a matter of political will. It's also a matter of political will. It's also a matter of the fact that we are no longer matter of the fact that we are no longer matter of the fact that we are no longer in a unipolar world. There are many in a unipolar world. There are many in a unipolar world. There are many competing factors, right? You're more competing factors, right? You're more competing factors, right? You're more likely to have a lasting settlement when likely to have a lasting settlement when likely to have a lasting settlement when you have, you know, multiple states who you have, you know, multiple states who you have, you know, multiple states who are signing on to solving the problem, are signing on to solving the problem, are signing on to solving the problem, which increasingly is extremely rare. which increasingly is extremely rare. which increasingly is extremely rare. >> How much does it also just reflect >> How much does it also just reflect >> How much does it also just reflect a loss of belief in the possible? I mean a loss of belief in the possible? I mean a loss of belief in the possible? I mean on Israel and the Palestinians for one on Israel and the Palestinians for one on Israel and the Palestinians for one >> there was a long period of attempts at >> there was a long period of attempts at >> there was a long period of attempts at at peace deals and you know the days at peace deals and you know the days at peace deals and you know the days when it felt like America had the power when it felt like America had the power when it felt like America had the power to convene and force a real discussion to convene and force a real discussion to convene and force a real discussion even if it didn't work at the end like even if it didn't work at the end like even if it didn't work at the end like those days were long they've been gone those days were long they've been gone those days were long they've been gone for a long time for a long time for a long time >> over the past many decades >> over the past many decades >> over the past many decades there's this feeling that international there's this feeling that international there's this feeling that international law has lost its power of moral law has lost its power of moral law has lost its power of moral imagination and the politicians who imagination and the politicians who imagination and the politicians who subscribe to it have kind of lost lost subscribe to it have kind of lost lost subscribe to it have kind of lost lost any tie with these kind of you know any tie with these kind of you know any tie with these kind of you know lofty ideals that kind of have

lofty ideals that kind of have lofty ideals that kind of have historically driven the field forward historically driven the field forward historically driven the field forward and and replace them with essentially and and replace them with essentially and and replace them with essentially managerialism managerialism managerialism and I think precisely as the Democratic and I think precisely as the Democratic and I think precisely as the Democratic party confronts the problem of like what party confronts the problem of like what party confronts the problem of like what is its foreign policy going to be it is its foreign policy going to be it is its foreign policy going to be it would be very well served would be very well served would be very well served to try to recapture an affirmative to try to recapture an affirmative to try to recapture an affirmative vision of that moral vision of that moral vision of that moral daringness, I suppose, to not just say daringness, I suppose, to not just say daringness, I suppose, to not just say we're going to revert to the rules, uh, we're going to revert to the rules, uh, we're going to revert to the rules, uh, and let that be that. Um, but to and let that be that. Um, but to and let that be that. Um, but to actually, if you're if you're going to actually, if you're if you're going to actually, if you're if you're going to say that, that's that's all very well say that, that's that's all very well say that, that's that's all very well and fine, but say why. say say that and fine, but say why. say say that and fine, but say why. say say that these things have um left us these things have um left us these things have um left us after Gaza in particular after Gaza in particular after Gaza in particular having to confront the ruins of the the having to confront the ruins of the the having to confront the ruins of the the kind of liberal internationalist order. kind of liberal internationalist order. kind of liberal internationalist order. >> Somebody was saying to me recently that >> Somebody was saying to me recently that >> Somebody was saying to me recently that they were fascinated by they were fascinated by they were fascinated by how naive widely held ideals of the how naive widely held ideals of the how naive widely held ideals of the fairly recent past now feel.

fairly recent past now feel. fairly recent past now feel. >> Yeah. that there was a time, you know, >> Yeah. that there was a time, you know, >> Yeah. that there was a time, you know, the 60s and 70s where people believed the 60s and 70s where people believed the 60s and 70s where people believed that maybe you could have a world that maybe you could have a world that maybe you could have a world without war, without war, without war, >> where people believed that they were, >> where people believed that they were, >> where people believed that they were, you know, into the 80s engaged effort to you know, into the 80s engaged effort to you know, into the 80s engaged effort to have a world without nuclear weapons have a world without nuclear weapons have a world without nuclear weapons >> and that there's very little of that >> and that there's very little of that >> and that there's very little of that kind of fantastical ambition. kind of fantastical ambition. kind of fantastical ambition. And so I guess I'm curious when you know And so I guess I'm curious when you know And so I guess I'm curious when you know in your reporting and your attending of in your reporting and your attending of in your reporting and your attending of these conferences, do you find that these conferences, do you find that these conferences, do you find that there are pockets of there are pockets of there are pockets of people dreaming about things that seem people dreaming about things that seem people dreaming about things that seem like a little fantastical now but but like a little fantastical now but but like a little fantastical now but but could be a source of at least the could be a source of at least the could be a source of at least the regeneration of values. We we feel so regeneration of values. We we feel so regeneration of values. We we feel so trapped by a realism about our trapped by a realism about our trapped by a realism about our institutions. institutions. institutions. >> Yeah. and that it's hard sometimes to >> Yeah. and that it's hard sometimes to >> Yeah. and that it's hard sometimes to know if there are places where yeah know if there are places where yeah know if there are places where yeah people are less trapped by that. people are less trapped by that. people are less trapped by that. >> No, I mean I think well I don't know if >> No, I mean I think well I don't know if >> No, I mean I think well I don't know if there is a place where people feel less there is a place where people feel less there is a place where people feel less trapped but I do think that many trapped but I do think that many trapped but I do think that many practitioners and scholars are trying to practitioners and scholars are trying to practitioners and scholars are trying to actual like actively think about what a actual like actively think about what a actual like actively think about what a new international law would look like.

new international law would look like. new international law would look like. There is a clear recognition in the There is a clear recognition in the There is a clear recognition in the field that something has to change. Um, field that something has to change. Um, field that something has to change. Um, and we had these kind of moments and we had these kind of moments and we had these kind of moments historically, right? You could look to historically, right? You could look to historically, right? You could look to any mo like, you know, the HEG peace any mo like, you know, the HEG peace any mo like, you know, the HEG peace conferences of the late 19th century conferences of the late 19th century conferences of the late 19th century that were then followed almost that were then followed almost that were then followed almost immediately by World War I or um immediately by World War I or um immediately by World War I or um the the fact that the Nermberg Charter the the fact that the Nermberg Charter the the fact that the Nermberg Charter was signed just before the bomb was was signed just before the bomb was was signed just before the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. like the these dropped on Nagasaki. like the these dropped on Nagasaki. like the these moments of real progress in moments of real progress in moments of real progress in international law are often followed by international law are often followed by international law are often followed by uh profound crises or you know things uh profound crises or you know things uh profound crises or you know things that kind of immediately would seem to that kind of immediately would seem to that kind of immediately would seem to invalidate the the ideals for which they invalidate the the ideals for which they invalidate the the ideals for which they are or that they espouse. I think you are or that they espouse. I think you are or that they espouse. I think you know my imagination is that we should know my imagination is that we should know my imagination is that we should have a kind of like have a kind of like have a kind of like reappraisal of what international law reappraisal of what international law reappraisal of what international law can do in the world right and whether can do in the world right and whether can do in the world right and whether that is going to be that is going to be that is going to be preventive or protective if it's going preventive or protective if it's going preventive or protective if it's going to be reparative I think this is a to be reparative I think this is a to be reparative I think this is a really interesting question you know really interesting question you know really interesting question you know people think of the ICC as just the people think of the ICC as just the people think of the ICC as just the court that's delivering criminal court that's delivering criminal court that's delivering criminal convictions in fact it's also the trust convictions in fact it's also the trust convictions in fact it's also the trust fund for victims which is giving out fund for victims which is giving out fund for victims which is giving out payments often in advance of and in payments often in advance of and in payments often in advance of and in parallel to criminal investigations parallel to criminal investigations parallel to criminal investigations >> after the Trump era. I mean, let's say >> after the Trump era. I mean, let's say >> after the Trump era. I mean, let's say you do have a Democratic president in you do have a Democratic president in you do have a Democratic president in 2029 and they want to come in and show 2029 and they want to come in and show 2029 and they want to come in and show that the era of international law of that the era of international law of that the era of international law of America being a participant in the America being a participant in the America being a participant in the rules, a participant in the

rules, a participant in the rules, a participant in the international order is back. What would international order is back. What would international order is back. What would they have to do they have to do they have to do to signal something real there? to signal something real there? to signal something real there? Yeah, I think [snorts] this is the Yeah, I think [snorts] this is the Yeah, I think [snorts] this is the question of moral imagination. You know, question of moral imagination. You know, question of moral imagination. You know, where do we want to go? Like I said, I where do we want to go? Like I said, I where do we want to go? Like I said, I don't think it's enough to just say don't think it's enough to just say don't think it's enough to just say we're reverting to the rules. I think we're reverting to the rules. I think we're reverting to the rules. I think you could imagine, you could imagine, you could imagine, and you know, Mani explicitly called for and you know, Mani explicitly called for and you know, Mani explicitly called for this, for the United States to join the this, for the United States to join the this, for the United States to join the ICC. Frankly, it's hard to imagine any ICC. Frankly, it's hard to imagine any ICC. Frankly, it's hard to imagine any administration doing that. But I think administration doing that. But I think administration doing that. But I think what you could do is [sighs and gasps] what you could do is [sighs and gasps] what you could do is [sighs and gasps] meaningfully meaningfully meaningfully lend American support to these lend American support to these lend American support to these institutions, you know, whether it's for institutions, you know, whether it's for institutions, you know, whether it's for example by giving a lot of money to the example by giving a lot of money to the example by giving a lot of money to the trust fund for victims, for example. Um trust fund for victims, for example. Um trust fund for victims, for example. Um to signal kind of material support. uh to signal kind of material support. uh to signal kind of material support. uh there is a kind of register of damages there is a kind of register of damages there is a kind of register of damages for Ukraine that has been logging for Ukraine that has been logging for Ukraine that has been logging everything that people have lost everything that people have lost everything that people have lost throughout that conflict and right now throughout that conflict and right now throughout that conflict and right now you know that is just a list of of you know that is just a list of of you know that is just a list of of claims that may never be fulfilled and claims that may never be fulfilled and claims that may never be fulfilled and and we have the power to kind of make and we have the power to kind of make and we have the power to kind of make that real I think like my interest is in that real I think like my interest is in that real I think like my interest is in how do we make international law how do we make international law how do we make international law material right how do we make these um material right how do we make these um material right how do we make these um moral values actually have a difference moral values actually have a difference moral values actually have a difference on people's lives and and That's the on people's lives and and That's the on people's lives and and That's the kind of reclaiming [snorts] this kind of reclaiming [snorts] this kind of reclaiming [snorts] this reparative idea of international law or reparative idea of international law or reparative idea of international law or a reparative politics that kind of can a reparative politics that kind of can a reparative politics that kind of can fill in the breach. That's where I've

fill in the breach. That's where I've fill in the breach. That's where I've found myself gravitating towards. found myself gravitating towards. found myself gravitating towards. >> So I think that's a good place to end. >> So I think that's a good place to end. >> So I think that's a good place to end. So always on our final question, what So always on our final question, what So always on our final question, what are three books you'd recommend to the are three books you'd recommend to the are three books you'd recommend to the audience? audience? audience? >> The first book I would recommend is it's >> The first book I would recommend is it's >> The first book I would recommend is it's called The Divided City by Nicole Lao. called The Divided City by Nicole Lao. called The Divided City by Nicole Lao. um who was a kind of a French scholar um who was a kind of a French scholar um who was a kind of a French scholar just a gorgeous writer and it's this just a gorgeous writer and it's this just a gorgeous writer and it's this book that talks about the inherent book that talks about the inherent book that talks about the inherent division of politics and how you can division of politics and how you can division of politics and how you can overcome it and historically it's it's a overcome it and historically it's it's a overcome it and historically it's it's a it's takes us back to the classics to it's takes us back to the classics to it's takes us back to the classics to ancient Athens that is the titular ancient Athens that is the titular ancient Athens that is the titular divided city and speaks about you know divided city and speaks about you know divided city and speaks about you know the difficulty of coming together after the difficulty of coming together after the difficulty of coming together after moments of profound rupture so that's moments of profound rupture so that's moments of profound rupture so that's the first one uh [sighs] the second book the first one uh [sighs] the second book the first one uh [sighs] the second book is coming out in September. It's called is coming out in September. It's called is coming out in September. It's called Crossing the Red Line um by Akbar Shahid Crossing the Red Line um by Akbar Shahid Crossing the Red Line um by Akbar Shahid Ahmed uh which is about the Biden Ahmed uh which is about the Biden Ahmed uh which is about the Biden administration's administration's administration's uh shifts in policy towards Gaza and uh shifts in policy towards Gaza and uh shifts in policy towards Gaza and precisely how that played out and you precisely how that played out and you precisely how that played out and you know I was just reading it on the train know I was just reading it on the train know I was just reading it on the train here and it is a very in in-depth here and it is a very in in-depth here and it is a very in in-depth reportage about how the kind of red line reportage about how the kind of red line reportage about how the kind of red line was um ignored uh and how they kind of was um ignored uh and how they kind of was um ignored uh and how they kind of >> this being red lines that Biden set >> this being red lines that Biden set >> this being red lines that Biden set where he would say to Netanyahu like where he would say to Netanyahu like where he would say to Netanyahu like that's a red line and then that's a red line and then that's a red line and then >> yeah I and you could specifically the >> yeah I and you could specifically the >> yeah I and you could specifically the discussion around the invasion of discussion around the invasion of discussion around the invasion of >> Rafa.

>> Rafa. >> Rafa. >> So I would recommend that. Uh and then >> So I would recommend that. Uh and then >> So I would recommend that. Uh and then the third book is by it's a novel called the third book is by it's a novel called the third book is by it's a novel called Underwater by Tara Manon uh that just Underwater by Tara Manon uh that just Underwater by Tara Manon uh that just came out which is a kind of it's it's came out which is a kind of it's it's came out which is a kind of it's it's gorgeously written and it's this gorgeously written and it's this gorgeously written and it's this response to Amitav Goch's response to Amitav Goch's response to Amitav Goch's uh prompt that fiction has not found uh prompt that fiction has not found uh prompt that fiction has not found figured out a way to describe the figured out a way to describe the figured out a way to describe the immensity of climate change. uh and to immensity of climate change. uh and to immensity of climate change. uh and to capture capture capture the kind of tectonic losses and shifts the kind of tectonic losses and shifts the kind of tectonic losses and shifts that it will bring about. And that is that it will bring about. And that is that it will bring about. And that is what Tara is attempting to do in this what Tara is attempting to do in this what Tara is attempting to do in this book. And it's it's kind of just book. And it's it's kind of just book. And it's it's kind of just beautifully executed. beautifully executed. beautifully executed. >> Linda Kensler, thank you very much. >> Linda Kensler, thank you very much. >> Linda Kensler, thank you very much. >> Thank you for having me. >> Thank you for having me. >> Thank you for having me. [music]