EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 36: The Scourge of War
Jul 25, 2025
Tom Dannenbaum, a Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, delves into the legality of military action by Israel and the US against Iran. He discusses the complexities of justifying self-defense in international law, particularly regarding imminent threats. The conversation also covers recent ECHR rulings related to Ukraine, focusing on human rights violations and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Dannenbaum emphasizes the need for accountability in conflicts and explores legal remedies for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Preventive War Undermines The UN Charter
- Stretching anticipatory self-defense to cover speculative capability use would erase Charter limits.
- Tom warned that accepting such expansive preventive war claims undermines the Charter's aim to prevent war.
Ongoing Attack Claims Need Strong Linkage
- Claiming an ongoing armed attack requires attribution and continuity across incidents.
- Tom argued prior isolated or reprisal acts by Iran or proxies don't straightforwardly create a continuous armed attack justification.
Aggregation Won't Justify Massive Strikes
- Aggregating low-intensity proxy attacks into a single armed attack is fact-dependent and often weak.
- Marko said even if aggregated, necessity and proportionality likely preclude large-scale strikes inside Iran.