JIB/JAB Podcast JIB/JAB - Episode 28: The War in Ukraine - Jus ad Bellum Implications
Mar 8, 2022
Eliav Lieblich, Tel Aviv University professor on human rights and use-of-force law. Ingrid Wuerth, Vanderbilt Law School professor focused on sovereignty and collective security. Marko Milanovic, international law scholar on jus ad bellum and armed conflict. They debate whether past Western breaches weakened norms, how human-rights legalism intersects with territorial integrity, fractures in the UN security system, and risks to nuclear non-proliferation and rearmament.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Cynical Legal Arguments Still Reinforce Legal Language
- Even cynical, instrumental legal arguments still validate international law's framework because violators must frame actions in legal terms.
- Ingrid Wuerth and Marko note Putin and Western legal memos both operate within legal language, showing the law's rhetorical power despite misuse.
Prioritize Territorial Integrity Over Expansive Humanitarian Claims
- Emphasizing human-rights based exceptions (like humanitarian intervention) risks undermining the priority of territorial integrity and interstate stability.
- Ingrid Wuerth argues international law can't both redraw borders globally and maintain stable interstate peace, so priority should be on preventing aggression.
Humanitarian Rhetoric Is Vulnerable To Selective Abuse
- Humanitarian arguments are attractive but highly prone to selective, instrumental use and abuse by powerful states.
- Marko uses Kosovo and Libya examples to show inconsistent application fuels skepticism, especially in the Global South.
