On Friday, Jan. 17, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the law which could effectively ban TikTok from operating in the United States, unless it is sold to a U.S. company. The case is the latest round in a legal battle involving free speech, national security, and the popular social media app, which is used by more than 170 million Americans. U.S. lawmakers argue that TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government raise serious data protection and content manipulation concerns. Free speech advocates see the law as a fundamental afront to the First Amendment. 

How did the Supreme Court decide the case? And how might this decision impact future efforts to regulate social media companies with ties to foreign governments? 

Joining the show to discuss the Court’s opinion and its implications are Marty Lederman, Asha Rangappa, and Xiangnong (George) Wang. 

Marty is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He has served in senior roles at the Justice Department, including in the Office of Legal Counsel. Asha is an Editor at Just Security, a Senior Lecturer at Yale’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, and a former FBI Agent specializing in counterintelligence investigations. George is a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 

Show Notes:  

• Marty Lederman (Bluesky – X)
• Asha Rangappa (Bluesky – X) 
• Xiangnong (George) Wang (Bluesky – LinkedIn)
• Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)
• Just Security’s U.S. Supreme Court coverage
• Just Security’s TikTok coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Just after midnight on Tuesday, Jan. 14, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office released its report on President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The report concludes that the evidence Smith obtained was sufficient to criminally convict Trump, but that after the 2024 election, the case could not move forward in light of Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.  

While the report reveals relatively little new factual information around the events of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, it does explain Smith’s rationale for his legal positions and key decisions. The report could also have implications for other criminal proceedings, including state-level cases against fake electors. 

What are the report’s key take-aways and how might it add to the historical record? 

Joining the show to discuss the report are Tom Joscelyn and Marty Lederman. 

Tom is a Senior Fellow at Just Security. He was a senior professional staff member on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Marty is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He served in senior roles at the Justice Department, including in the Office of Legal Counsel.  

Show Notes:  

• Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)
• Tom Joscelyn (Bluesky – X) 
• Marty Lederman (Bluesky – X)
• Tom’s Just Security article with Ryan Goodman (Bluesky – LinkedIn) “3 Highlights in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Final Report on 2020 Election Subversion Case” 
• Just Security’s Trump Trials Clearinghouse
• Just Security’s January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In just a few weeks, Donald Trump will begin his second term as U.S. president. During his campaign and after reelection, Trump has signaled sweeping reforms to the U.S. immigration system. Among his top goals are promises to conduct the largest mass deportation in U.S. history, militarize the border, and introduce more border surveillance.

In recent years, digital technologies have impacted virtually every aspect of migration. From visa triaging algorithms to drone surveillance with biometric data collection capabilities, companies and governments are increasingly developing and using these technologies to implement their migration policies. 

How are new forms of technology affecting people on the move?  

Joining the show discuss border technologies and what we can expect from the new administration are Judith Cabrera and Petra Molnar. 

Judith is Co-Director of the Border Line Crisis Center, an organization which provides comprehensive networks of care to the migrant community in Tijuana, Mexico. Petra co-runs the Refugee Law Lab at York University and is a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. 

Show Notes: 

• Judith Cabrera
• Petra Molnar (@_PMolnar)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Petra’s Just Security article "Border Technologies Under Trump 2.0"
• Just Security’s Technology coverage
• Just Security’s Migration coverage
• Just Security’s Artificial Intelligence coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Oleksandra Matviichuk is one of the leading lawyers and human rights advocates pushing for accountability for grave crimes committed during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In 2007, Oleksandra founded the Center for Civil Liberties, which she still leads. In 2022, it became the first Ukrainian organization to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The center was awarded the prize that year alongside human rights advocate Ales Bialiatski from Belarus, and the Russian human rights organization Memorial.  

The Center for Civil Liberties aims to advance human rights and democracy in Ukraine and the broader Europe-Eurasia region. It defends individual rights, develops legislative changes, conducts public oversight over law enforcement agencies and the judiciary, and offers educational activities for young people.

How does the Center for Civil Liberties promote accountability? And what does Oleksandra see as the key issues and trends to watch as this full-scale war nears its third-year mark in February?

Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger, recently sat down with Oleksandra to discuss her work. Here is their conversation.

Show Notes: 

• Oleksandra Matviichuk (@avalaina) 
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Oleksandra’s March 2023 Just Security article (with Natalia Arno and Jasmine D. Cameron) “Russia’s Forcible Transfers of Ukrainian Civilians: How Civil Society Aids Accountability and Justice” (also available in Ukrainian)
• Oona A. Hathaway’s Just Security article (with Madeline Babin and Isabel Gensler) “New Report Documents Russia’s Systematic Program of Coerced Adoption and Fostering of Ukraine’s Children”
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War coverage
• Just Security’s International Criminal Court coverage
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Nobel Peace Prize 2022 announcement and Oleksandra’s website
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Among the many war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine are large-scale efforts to deport Ukrainian children to Russia. Thousands of children have already been taken to Russian camps and facilities, leading the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for two senior Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, in March 2023. 

Despite the arrest warrants, the deportations have continued. A new report from the Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab identified 314 individual Ukrainian children that Russian officials transferred from Ukraine to Russia for coerced adoption and fostering, acts that likely constitute grave violations of international law. 

What are the report’s key findings? And how might they contribute to efforts toward accountability, including potential new criminal charges against Russian officials? 

Joining the show to discuss the report are Oona Hathaway and Nathaniel Raymond. 

Oona is a Professor at Yale Law School and an Executive Editor at Just Security. Nathaniel is the Executive Director of the Humanitarian Research Lab and a Lecturer in the Department of the Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases at the Yale School of Public Health. 

Show Notes:  

• Nathaniel Raymond (@nattyray11)
• Oona A. Hathaway (@oonahathaway)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Oona’s Just Security article (with Madeline Babin and Isabel Gensler) “New Report Documents Russia’s Systematic Program of Coerced Adoption and Fostering of Ukraine’s Children”
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War coverage
• Just Security’s International Criminal Court coverage
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On November 22, the United Nations General Assembly’s legal arm, the Sixth Committee, adopted a resolution paving the way for negotiations on a first-ever treaty on preventing and punishing crimes against humanity. The resolution comes after years of impasse and after Russia and a handful of other countries dropped amendments that could have derailed the process at the last-minute. 

Crimes against humanity are those committed as part of a large-scale attack on civilians and include acts such as murder, rape, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, sexual slavery, torture and deportation. To be considered a crime against humanity, a violation doesn’t necessarily have to occur during an active war. And while crimes against humanity are covered by the International Criminal Court, nearly 70 countries are not members of the Court, which creates a gap in fully prosecuting these crimes in countries from Sudan to Syria to Myanmar. 

What can we expect next as States prepare for negotiations, and how might a future crimes against humanity treaty close the impunity gap?  

Joining the show to unpack the developments on the crimes against humanity treaty are Akila Radhakrishnan and Leila Sadat.  

Akila is an international human rights lawyer and gender-justice expert, who currently serves as the Strategic Legal Advisor for Gender Justice for the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project. Leila is the James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law and longtime Director of the Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute at Washington University School of Law. 

Show Notes: 

• Akila Radhakrishnan (@akila_rad)
• Leila Nadya Sadat (@leilasadat1)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s Proposed Crimes Against Humanity Treaty coverage
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Just Security’s International Criminal Court coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Earlier this fall, three Pacific Island States – Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa – formally proposed adding ecocide as a crime that can be heard and punished by the International Criminal Court, which can currently try individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression.

Any change to the ICC’s Rome Statute, particularly adding a new international crime, would require a massive level of diplomatic coordination and negotiation. But the future crime might hold individuals criminally accountable for severe environmental damage, such as massive oil or chemical spills or the destruction of rainforests. 

In the meantime, what does the ecocide proposal mean in practice? How might it potentially impact our understanding of ongoing destruction of the environment and the role of international criminal law? 

Joining the show to unpack the ecocide proposal are Naima Fifita, Rebecca Hamilton, and Kate Mackintosh.  

Naima is a lawyer from Tuvalu. She is the Executive Director of the Institute for Climate and Peace. Bec is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University. Kate is Executive Director of the UCLA Law Promise Institute Europe, and Deputy Co-Chair of the Independent Expert Panel on the Legal Definition of Ecocide.  

Show Notes:  

• Naima Fifita
• Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton) 
• Kate Mackintosh (@Katemackintosh2)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s expert round up article “Why Criminalize Ecocide? Experts Weigh In” 
• Just Security’s Climate Change coverage
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Just Security’s International Criminal Court coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

With the U.S. presidential election less than a week away, anxiety is high, both across the country and around the world. Many fear the rise of populism and the erosion of democratic norms. In over two centuries, the United States has had many presidents who pushed on the door of anti-democratic power, but it has also had people who pushed back. 

Ahead of the election, what lessons can we learn by looking to the past? 

Brown University political scientist Corey Brettschneider is one of the leading thinkers on presidential power. His recent book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It examines how John Adams, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon abused their power, and how citizens like Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, and Daniel Ellsberg resisted and offered a more democratic understanding of the Constitution. 

Just Security Senior Fellow Tom Joscelyn sat down with Brettschneider to discuss the book and the lessons it offers for the election, the state of American democracy, and beyond.

Here is Tom’s conversation with Corey Brettschneider. 

Show Notes: 

• Corey Brettschneider (@BrettschneiderC)
• Tom Joscelyn (@thomasjoscelyn) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Corey’s book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It published by W. W. Norton & Company
• Just Security’s “Democracy Backsliding” series
• Just Security’s 2024 Presidential Election coverage
• Just Security’s Democracy coverage
• Just Security’s Domestic Extremism coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

For five years, Christopher Smith, a man with intellectual disabilities, was forced to work 100 hours per week at a South Carolina restaurant without pay. Smith faced verbal and physical abuse at the hands of his employer. Around the world, persons with disabilities like Smith face many modern forms of enslavement, from forced labor and begging to sexual exploitation and imprisonment by caregivers. 

While some of these crimes are prosecuted through national court systems, international criminal law can also play an important role in promoting accountability for grave crimes, including the crime of the slave trade. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is formulating a new Slave Crimes Policy, which he hopes will be “survivor-centred, trauma-informed and gender-competent.”

How can international law, and the new policy, best account for the unique needs and challenges persons with disabilities face regarding slavery crimes? 

Joining the show to unpack how slavery crimes impact persons with disabilities and what the international community can do in response are Janet Lord and Michael Ashley Stein. 

Janet is the Executive Director of the University of Baltimore School of Law’s Center for International and Comparative Law and a senior research fellow at the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Michael is the co-founder and Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. 

Show Notes:  

• Janet E. Lord
• Michael Ashley Stein
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Janet, Michael, Pace Schwarz, Matthew “Hezzy” Smith, Alex Green, and Rosemary Kayess’ Just Security article “Time for the International Criminal Court to Recognize Persons with Disabilities and the Slave Trade” 
• Just Security’s Disability Rights coverage
• Just Security’s International Criminal Court (ICC) coverage
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Harvard Law School Project on Disability (HPOD) 
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

During this year’s election season in Mexico, propagandists leveraged a new mass-broadcasting feature on WhatsApp, called “channels,” to impersonate reputable political news outlets and pump out misleading information. Thousands of miles away, Telegram users in Hungary leveraged the app’s forwarding bot against LGBTQ+ and pro-democracy civil society organizations, portraying them as “Western-controlled” ahead of European Union elections. 

Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Viber have become highly influential tools for manipulating and misleading voters around the world. 

In fact, a new report, “Covert Campaigns: Safeguarding Encrypted Messaging Platforms from Voter Manipulation” examines how political propagandists have refined a digital “broadcasting toolkit.” The toolkit is a set of tactics for reaching large swaths of voters directly on their phones using narratives tailored to resonate with their specific interests and viewpoints. 

What are some of the most common tactics in the “broadcasting toolkit”? How can users and messaging platforms respond to the spread of propaganda and disinformation? 

Joining the show to discuss the report’s key findings are two of its authors, Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat and Inga Trauthig. 

Mariana is a policy advisor on technology and law at the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. Inga is the head of research for the Propaganda Research Lab at the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin.

Show Notes:  

• Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat
• Inga Trauthig
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Mariana, Inga, and Samuel C. Woolley's Just Security article “Political Propaganda Runs Wild on Messaging Apps – Platform Owners Can Help Counter It” 
• Just Security’s Disinformation and Misinformation coverage 
• Just Security’s Technology coverage
• Just Security’s Elections coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The conflict in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023, primarily involves the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) under General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti. While the fighting began in the country’s capital, Khartoum, it has since spread to other regions, including Darfur. 

The conflict has resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries, with estimates of 15,000 killed and more than 20,000 injured. The humanitarian crisis is dire, with millions facing severe food shortages. Around 25 million people are in need of assistance, 8.1 million are internally displaced, and 2.9 million people have crossed the border since April 2023. Recent discussions at the United Nations General Assembly highlighted the urgent need for international intervention and support. 

Meanwhile, the most recent clashes in Khartoum suggest a possible shift in the balance of power, as both sides continue to vie for control amid an increasingly fragmented landscape.

Co-hosting this episode is Just Security Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf. Matiangai is the Nathan Patz Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law.

Joining the show to discuss the conflict’s origins and its impact, and the international community’s response are Laura Beny, Nisrin Elamin, and Hamid Khalafallah. 

Laura is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, Nisrin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto, and Hamid is a Researcher at the University of Manchester. 

Show Notes:  

• Laura Nyantung Beny
• Nisrin Elamin (@minlayla77)
• Hamid Khalafallah (@HamidMurtada)
• Matiangai V.S. Sirleaf (@matiangai)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s Sudan coverage
• Laura and Sondra Hale's book "Sudan's Killing Fields: Political Viilence and Fragmentation" 
• Nisrin's article with Sara Abbas, Rabab Elnaiem, and Abdelraouf Omer "In Sudan, the People’s Revolution Versus the Elite’s Counterrevolution" 
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

More than 130 world leaders just completed a week of meetings in New York for the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly. This high-level week, as it’s called, began with States adopting U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' "Pact for the Future,” a key document generated as part of the "Summit of the Future."  

The goal of the Summit, and the pact, is to recharge the idea of global cooperation, which is facing severe strain amid competition between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Russia and China and their allies on the other. The U.N. meetings also occurred as conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan, and Myanmar, to name just a few, are killing tens of thousands of people and displacing millions. 

What were the key outcomes from the Summit of the Future and how might it shape future global diplomacy? And how can the U.N. more broadly remain relevant amid such geopolitical tensions? 

Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger. 

Joining the show to assess the high-level week and the Summit of the Future is Richard Ponzio. 

Richard is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Stimson Center’s program on Global Governance, Justice & Security.

Show Notes:  

• Richard Ponzio (@RichardPonzio)
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Richard's Just Security article "The UN's New 'Pact for the Future': A Milestone That Can Set a Path for Change"
• Just Security’s UNGA 79 coverage including expert analysis and resources
• Just Security’s U.N. Security Council coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas war, and Sudan confect coverage   
• Just Security’s Summit of the Future coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Earlier this month, a SpaceX mission called Polaris Dawn launched four civilians into outer space. The crew completed the first ever “commercial spacewalk” while floating more than 800 miles above the Earth’s surface. But private companies aren’t the only ones interested in exploring the stars. Militaries are increasingly using space for a comparative advantage, from Russia’s plans to place a nuclear weapon into orbit to China’s development of anti-satellite weapons for the final frontier. 

And while these “new space races” are full of emerging technology, the law that governs outer space is decades old and incomplete. Much of it was developed in the 1960s and 70s. It remains murky and the legal guardrails, where they exist, are largely untested. 

Recently, experts from academia, industry, and government have published the Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and Operations. The Manual is the first comprehensive and detailed articulation of how international law applies to military operations in outer space.  

What motivated the project of drafting the Manual, and how was it developed? How might it benefit the future development of space law and where do gaps remain? 

Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman. 

Joining the show to discuss the Woomera Manual are two of its editors, Jack Beard and David Koplow. Jack is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Space, Cyber, and National Security Law Program at the University of Nebraska College of Law. David is the Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center where he specializes in public international law and national security law. 

Show Notes: 

• Jack M. Beard
• David A. Koplow
• Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• David’s Just Security article “In the Woomera Manual, International Law Meets Military Space Activities” 
• The Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and Operations
• Just Security’s Space coverage
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Just Security’s Law of Armed Conflict coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Next week, world leaders from nearly 150 nations will meet in New York for the annual high-level week during the United Nations General Assembly’s new session. Among the many topics for discussion will be the ongoing wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan, efforts to regulate artificial intelligence and get sustainable development back on track, and the role of the U.N. Security Council in international peace and security. 

The formal and informal meetings of the week will play out as many of the U.N.’s agencies and institutions – from the Security Council to the International Court of Justice – are under stress and scrutiny. What are the key trends to watch for? How might the upcoming U.S. presidential election shape the discussions and debate? 

Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger. 

Joining the show to unpack the key themes around this year’s U.N. General Assembly is Richard Gowan. Richard is the U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an organization providing independent analysis and advice on how to prevent, resolve or better manage conflict.

Show Notes:  

• Richard Gowan (@RichardGowan1) 
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Richard’s Just Security article “Guide to the Formal and Informal Agendas at the 2024 UN General Assembly Summit”
• Just Security’s UNGA 79 coverage including expert analysis and resources
• Just Security’s U.N. Security Council coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas war, and Sudan confect coverage   
• Just Security’s Summit of the Future coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

From gathering and analyzing information to battlefield operations, States are integrating AI into a range of military and intelligence operations. Gaza and Ukraine are battle labs for this new technology. But many questions remain about whether, and how, such advances should be regulated. 

 As political and military leaders, industry, academics, and civil society confront a rapidly changing world, how should they approach the role of AI in the military? This week, more than two thousand experts from over 90 countries gathered in Seoul, South Korea, for the second global summit on Responsible AI in the Military Domain (REAIM). The Summit focused on three themes: understanding the implications of AI on international peace and security; implementing responsible application of AI in the military domain; and envisioning the future governance of AI in the military domain.

This is the Just Security Podcast. I’m your host, Paras Shah.

Just Security Senior Fellow Brianna Rosen and Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman were among the participants at the REAIM Summit, chairing and speaking on several breakout sessions. Today, Brianna joins the show to share her key takeaways from the Summit, including on how it inform future efforts to build consensus and strengthen AI governance in the military domain. 

Show Notes: 

• Brianna Rosen (@rosen_br)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Tobias Vestner and Simon Cleobury’s Just Security article “Putting the Second REAIM Summit into Context”
• Just Security’s Artificial Intelligence coverage
• Just Security’s Diplomacy coverage
• Just Security’s Military coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The situation in Israel and Palestine raises some of the most complex and contested issues in international law. In the past few years, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and a U.N.-backed Independent Commission of Inquiry have all addressed various legal dimensions of the conflict, including the status of Israel’s long-standing occupation of the Palestinian Territories and its conduct of hostilities in the Gaza Strip. 

Just how have those bodies ruled? What have they chosen to condemn as violations of community norms and what conduct has been silenced or omitted? And what does all of this mean in practice, both as a matter of international law, for third-party States, and for the people on the ground? 

Joining the show to unpack how international courts and institutions have addressed the situation in Palestine are Shahd Hammouri, Ardi Imseis, and Victor Kattan. 

Shahd is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Kent Law School, Ardi is an Associate Professor and the Academic Director of the International Law Programs at Queen’s University Law School, and Victor is an Assistant Professor in Public International Law at the University of Nottingham School of Law.

Co-hosting this episode is Just Security Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf. Matiangai is the Nathan Patz Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. 

Show Notes: 

• Shahd Hammouri (@shahdhm)
• Ardi Imseis (@ArdiImseis)
• Victor Kattan (@VictorKattan)
• Matiangai V.S. Sirleaf (@matiangai)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Discussion timestamps: 
  • 1:49 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion “Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in The Occupied Palestinian Territory”
  • 43:10 International Court of Justice South Africa v. Israel case
  • 1:05 Independent Commission of Inquiry 
  • 1:38 International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s Request for Arrest Warrants
• Matiangai’s Just Security article “We Charge Geocide: Redux” 
• Just Security’s Israel and Palestine coverage
• Just Security’s International Court of Justice coverage
• Just Security’s International Criminal Court coverage  
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

From the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, political violence in the United States is on the minds of many around the country and around the world. As the 2024 election draws closer, now is a useful moment to reflect on the threats of political violence, to consider how other nations have dealt with similar risks, and to evaluate where government and civil institutions can improve. 

Joining the show to discuss the risks of political violence in the United States and what can be done to address them is Rachel Kleinfeld. Rachel is a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where she focuses on issues of conflict, governance, development, and security. 

Show Notes: 

• Rachel Kleinfeld (@RachelKleinfeld)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Rachel’s Just Security article “Political Violence in the United States Is Rising – and It Might Be Up to Americans to Say ‘Enough!’”
• Just Security’s Democracy coverage
• Just Security’s Political Violence coverage
• Just Security’s Domestic Extremism coverage
• Just Security’s Rule of Law coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

At their core, the laws of war seek to preserve humanity in the most difficult conditions. As Dr. Cordula Droege, the chief legal officer and head of the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (or ICRC) recently wrote for Just Security, “Understood in simplest terms, the law of armed conflict acknowledges that both sides will inevitably kill, injure, detain, and destroy, but it prohibits them from dehumanizing their adversary.” 

She notes that “Altogether, IHL contains hundreds of rules that protect life, health, and human dignity. It is modest and imperfect – it seeks only to guarantee a modicum of humanity in situations where our humanity has already been largely compromised.” 

But across the world – from Gaza to Myanmar to Ukraine to Sudan – IHL is facing a moment of profound strain. Civilians are targeted. Cities are leveled. And, as Droege writes, “All too often today, the protective purpose of IHL is set aside and the rules are literally turned on their head: instead of being interpreted to protect civilians, the absence of clear violations are invoked to justify a level of death, injury and destruction that is precisely what IHL intended to avoid.” 

Are the laws of war inadequate? Why are some States choosing not to comply? What exactly is the problem with IHL? 

Dr. Droege join the show to discuss her article, “War and What We Make of the Law” with Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman, and Just Security Legal Editor and Podcast Host and Executive Producer, Paras Shah. 

Show Notes:  

• Cordula Droege (@CDroegeICRC) 
• Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Cordula’s Just Security article “War and What We Make of the Law”
• Mary Wareham’s Just Security article “Lithuania Leaving Cluster Munition Ban Undermines Agreement, Threatens Crucial Norms” 
• Just Security’s International Humanitarian Law coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

August this year marks 10 years since the shocking execution of American freelance journalist James Foley at the hands of ISIS amid the war in Syria in 2014. His videotaped decapitation was the first of a spree of ISIS beheadings, including several Americans, which ISIS often used as recruitment propaganda. Jim’s killing, almost two years after he had been captured, stunned the world. A month later, ISIS did the same to another American journalist, Time Magazine contributor Steven Joel Sotloff. A month later, an American aid worker, Peter Kassig, was killed in the same way. Another American aid worker, Kayla Mueller, was killed in 2015 while being held captive by ISIS. 

Jim’s mother, Diane Foley, has pushed through the horror of those years by establishing the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation in her son’s memory and pressing the U.S. government persistently over a decade to reform its approach to cases of American hostages held abroad. At the time, its policy, as she explains in a recent article published by Just Security, consisted of little more than a slogan: “The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.” 

Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger. 

On this episode, we’re privileged to have Jim Foley’s mother, Diane Foley, and Luke Hartig, a member of Just Security’s editorial board, who first met Diane when he was a senior director at the National Security Council working on hostage policy and she was advocating for changes in hostage policy. He serves on the Foley Foundation’s advisory board. 

Diane has been a driving force in reforming U.S. policy and practices on the handling of American hostages held abroad. Part of that campaign has been an annual research report that the foundation produces, entitled Bringing Americans Home. It collects and analyzes evidence-based data on hostages currently held in 16 countries to inform the American public, government officials, and lawmakers about how the U.S. government is doing and what else is needed to secure the release of U.S. hostages abroad and reduce the risks of capture in the first place. The latest edition was just released. 

Show Notes:  

• Diane M. Foley (@FoleyDi) 
• Luke Hartig (@LukeHartig) 
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Diane’s Just Security article “Since James Foley’s Death, a `Moral Awakening’ in America on Hostages Held Abroad”
• James W. Foley Legacy Foundation
• Just Security's Hostages coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In November 2021, a teenager in rural Texas downloaded the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and quickly became obsessed. He began to research weapons from the game, including a military-grade assault rifle. The company that manufactures the weapon used Instagram to market it. 

The teenager spent hours on Instagram, using 20 different accounts to browse the app. He learned more about the gun, and saved every dollar he could to pre-order it. 23 minutes after he turned 18 years old, he purchased the weapon. A few days later, on May 24, 2022, the teenager walked into Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and used the gun to kill 19 fourth-graders and two teachers.  

Now, two years after the massacre, the families of those killed are suing Instagram and Activision Blizzard, the company that publishes Call of Duty. The novel lawsuit faces many legal hurdles – among them is Section 230, a federal law which significantly shields social media companies from liability for third-party content posted on their platforms. 

How might this long shot lawsuit impact who can be held responsible for mass shootings? And what are its potential implications for Silicon Valley in other contexts?  

Joining the show to discuss the case and its potential impact on legal efforts to hold social media companies liable through the court system is Paul Barrett.  

Paul is the deputy director and senior research scholar at the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.

Show Notes: 

• Paul M. Barrett (@AuthorPMBarrett) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Paul’s Just Security article “Can Families of Mass Shooting Victims Hold Social Media Companies Responsible for Violence?”  
• Just Security’s Section 230 coverage
• Just Security’s Big Tech coverage
• Just Security’s Domestic Extremism coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This week, leaders from across the Euro-Atlantic region met in Washington, D.C., for the annual NATO Summit. The security pact turned 75 this year, and its 32 members are facing challenges on multiple fronts, from Russia’s continuing bombardment of Ukraine, now in its third year, to the growing relationship between Russia and China and NATO member Hungary’s outreach to both. And that’s not to mention issues such as the impacts of technology, especially artificial intelligence, and questions of how many allies are reaching the intended threshold for their own defense spending of at least 2% of GDP.

And all of this comes amid the uncertainty of a looming U.S. election in which former President Donald Trump has signaled he would distance Washington’s support for the alliance, and amid President Joe Biden’s struggles to persuade supporters that he still has the physical and mental stamina – at age 81 – to serve another term. 

What are the key takeaways from the Summit and how might it influence security concerns on both sides of the Atlantic? 

Co-hosting today is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger, and joining the show to discuss this year’s NATO summit and unpack its implications is Ambassador Daniel Fried. 

During his 40 years in the Foreign Service, Ambassador Fried played a central role in implementing U.S. policy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. In several senior roles, including as Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Ambassador Fried helped craft the policy of NATO enlargement to Central European countries and NATO-Russia relations. Earlier, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. He is currently the Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, which co-hosted the annual NATO Public Forum with other think tanks on the sidelines of the summit.  

Show Notes: 

• Ambassador Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried) 
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Ambassador Fried’s Just Security article “At the NATO Summit, Strategy and Politics in Play”  
• Just Security’s NATO coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. United States, finding that former presidents have “absolute immunity” for certain “official acts” taken while in office. The decision is a potentially sweeping expansion of presidential power and raises many questions, such as how to separate “official” and “unofficial” conduct in practice, and how it will impact the prosecutions against former President Donald Trump.  

What are the opinion’s key takeaways? How might Special Counsel Jack Smith respond to the decision? 

Joining the show to unpack the Court’s landmark ruling, and what it means for presidential power and democracy, are leading legal experts Marty Lederman, Mary McCord, and Steve Vladeck. Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, co-hosted the discussion. 

Marty previously served in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel and is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Mary is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and is a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She previously had a long career at the Department of Justice, as a federal prosecutor and later in leadership of the National Security Division. Steve is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and he covers the Supreme Court both for CNN and through his Substack newsletter, “One First.” Marty, Mary, and Steve are all Editors at Just Security.  

Show Notes: 

• Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman)
• Mary B. McCord
• Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck)
• Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Just Security’s Trump Trials coverage
• Just Security’s Supreme Court coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On June 24, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two top Russian officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 

Prosecutors allege that Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s former defense minister, and Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, directed missile strikes against Ukraine’s power plants and electrical infrastructure. 

Russian attacks on Ukraine’s power plants during the winter of 2022-2023 left 12 million people with limited or no access to energy and severely damaged Ukraine's health care system. 

Just how might the arrest warrants influence the war?  

Joining the show to discuss the arrest warrants and their potential impact are Kateryna Busol and Rebecca Hamilton. 

Kateryna is a Ukrainian lawyer and an Associate Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Rebecca is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University.  

Show Notes: 

• Kateryna Busol (@KaterynaBusol)
• Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s symposium “International Law in the Face of Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv” 
• Fionnuala Ní Aoláin’s Just Security article “A Zone of Silence: Obstetric Violence in Gaza and Beyond” and Podcast episode with Paras and Viola Gienger “Harm to Women in War Goes Beyond Sexual Violence: `Obstetric Violence' Neglected” 
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

 The latest annual report from the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition identified more than 2,500 incidents of violence against, or obstruction of, health care in conflicts during 2023. 

Those incidents, which span from Myanmar to Mali, include attacks on health care workers and facilities, the use of drones to target hospitals and ambulances, and the occupation of hospitals to conduct military operations. And many attacks are carried out with impunity. 

Joining the show to unpack patterns of attacks on health care in armed conflicts is an expert team from the nonprofit organization Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and their local partners. 

Dr. Houssam al-Nahhas is PHR’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) researcher where he documents attacks on health care, including unlawful detention of health care workers, and advocates for access to health.  

Dr. Neema Rukunghu Nadine-Néné is a gynecologist at Panzi hospital in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and an expert trainer on the care of survivors of sexual violence for PHR and the Panzi Foundation.  

Uliana Poltavets is PHR’s Ukraine Emergency Response Coordinator where she focuses on documenting attacks on health care in Ukraine since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. 

Dr. “B” Zemen is an Organizational Psychologist and board member of the Health Professionals Network for Tigray (HPN4Tigray).

Show Notes: 

• Dr. Houssam al-Nahhas (@h_alnahhas)
• Dr. Neema Rukunghu
• Uliana Poltavets
• Dr. "B" Zemen
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Uliana and Christian De Vos’ Just Security article “Russia’s Attacks on Ukraine’s Energy Infrastructure Imperil Healthcare Access” 
• Just Security’s International Humanitarian Law (IHL) coverage
• Just Security’s health coverage
• Just Security’s Civilian Harm coverage
• Just Security’s Gaza, Russia-Ukraine War, Syria, and Tigray coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Just over two years ago, Russian forces fired a missile that destroyed a museum complex in Ukraine. The attack decimated the home of 18th-century Ukrainian philosopher and poet Hryhorii Skovoroda. Hundreds of years after his death, Skovoroda is still an important national figure. Ukrainian universities bear his name, and he appears on the 500 hryvnia note. For many Ukrainians, the attack felt like it struck at the core of their identity. 

Damage to cultural heritage has deep impacts on the people who care about and depend on it. Attacks in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, and other areas affected by armed conflict reveal a pattern of harm from explosive weapons to cultural heritage and, by extension, to civilians. But now, a new legal framework could change how nations protect cultural heritage during war.  

Joining the show to discuss the impact of explosive weapons on cultural heritage, and what States can do to address it, is Bonnie Docherty. 

Bonnie is a Senior Arms Advisor in the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. She is also a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic and Director of the Clinic’s Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative. 

Show Notes: 

• Bonnie Docherty (@bonnie_docherty) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Bonnie’s Just Security article “Explosive Weapons Pose Threats to Cultural Heritage: States Have a Tool to Protect It” 
• Just Security’s International Humanitarian Law coverage
• Just Security’s Protection of Civilians coverage
• Just Security’s Civilian Harm coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Borders between countries are often dangerous, violent places. From the sands of the Sahel to the islands of the Mediterranean, borders allow governments to define who can enter a country – often deciding whether a person can find refuge or is left behind.  

Increasingly, borders are also spaces for governments and private companies to test new technology. But how is that technology being used? And what impact is it having for people on the move?  

Petra Molnar’s new book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in The Age of Artificial Intelligence offers a sweeping portrait of how new tech, from surveillance drones to lie detection software, is transforming borders around the world. 

A lawyer and anthropologist, Petra specializes in migration and human rights. She co-runs the Refugee Law Lab at York University and is a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. 

Just Security Podcast host Paras Shah recently sat down with Petra to discuss the book, which is available now from The New Press and wherever books are sold. 

Show Notes: 

• Petra Molnar (@_PMolnar)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Petra’s book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in The Age of Artificial Intelligence published by The New Press
• Just Security’s Technology coverage
• Just Security’s Migration coverage
• Just Security’s Artificial Intelligence coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)
• Music: “Two Acres” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/two-acres (License code: TSVLNHC2S7MBCVQS)

Last week, an international court issued a major decision that could impact how nations around the world address climate change and protect the ocean. 

On May 21, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), also known as “The Oceans Court,” delivered an advisory opinion holding that countries must take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from greenhouse gas emissions. This is the first time that an international court has ruled directly on countries’ international legal obligations to mitigate climate change. The European Court of Human Rights found similar State obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in April. 

The ITLOS decision is a major victory for the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, COSIS, a coalition of nine nations from the Caribbean and the Pacific. For small island States, climate change is an existential threat. Protecting the world’s oceans, which act as important heat and carbon sinks, is key to maintaining fish stocks, reducing the frequency and intensity of devastating storms, and preserving plants and wildlife. 

What exactly did the Tribunal decide? How might this groundbreaking ruling impact future climate policy? 

Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Managing Editor, Megan Corrarrino, and joining the show to discuss the Tribunal’s decision and its potential impact are Catherine Amirfar and Ambassador Cheryl Bazard.  

Catherine is Chair of the Subcommittee on Litigation Management of COSIS’s Committee of Legal Experts and the Co-Chair of the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton’s International Dispute Resolution Group. She is also the Co-Chair of Just Security’s Advisory Board. Ambassador Cheryl Bazard serves as The Bahamas' Ambassador to Belgium and the European Union. The Bahamas is one of the nine COSIS States that sought the opinion. 

Show Notes:  

• Ambassador Cheryl Bazard
• Catherine Amirfar
• Megan Corrarino (@MeganCorrarino)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Catherine and Duncan Pickard’s Just Security article “Q&A: ‘The Oceans Court’ Issues Landmark Advisory Opinion on Climate Change”
• Rebecca Hamilton’s Just Security article “The ‘Year of Climate’ in International Courts” 
• Just Security’s Climate Change coverage
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

We are over a month into former President Donald Trump’s historic criminal trial. The prosecution and defense have each presented their cases, and a Manhattan jury will soon decide whether Trump broke the law and interfered in the 2016 election by falsifying business records in an effort to cover up “hush money” payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. 

What has it been like inside the courtroom? What can we expect next from each side in closing arguments? 

Joining the show to discuss the trial and what comes next are seasoned legal reporters Terri Austin and Adam Klasfeld. 

Terri is an experienced lawyer and legal analyst and Adam is a veteran reporter and Journalism Fellow at Just Security. They’ve both covered Trump’s New York trial from inside the courtroom since day one. 

Show Notes:  

• Terri Austin (@Terridaustin)
• Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s Trump New York criminal trial coverage
• Just Security’s “Trump Trials Clearinghouse” 
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On Monday, May 20, International Criminal Court head Prosecutor Karim Khan announced that he has submitted an application to the Court’s judges to issue arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Minister of Defence of Israel, and three Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The allegations are extensive, as discussed in a lengthy statement released by the Prosecutor, although the application itself is not yet public.  

The decision has major implications for the devastating conflict still raging in Gaza; and for how the Court interacts with nations across the world. In Washington, the arrest warrants are certain to threaten recent increased cooperation with the Court, and efforts to prosecute Russian officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine could also be jeopardized. 

Joining the show to discuss Khan’s request and its potential consequences are Todd Buchwald, Tom Dannenbaum, and Rebecca Hamilton. 

Todd formerly served as Ambassador and Special Coordinator for the State Department’s Office of Global Criminal Justice. Tom is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he is also Co-Director of the Center for International Law and Governance. Rebecca is a law professor at American University and an Executive Editor at Just Security.

Show Notes:

• Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)
• Todd Buchwald
• Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) 
• Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s Symposium “The International Criminal Court and Israel-Hamas War”
• Tom’s Just Security article “Nuts & Bolts of Int’l Criminal Court Arrest Warrant Applications for Senior Israeli Officials and Hamas Leaders” 
• Rebecca, Tess, and Ryan Goodman’s article “Timeline of Int’l Crim Court Arrest Warrants for Gaza War: What Comes Next and How We Got Here” 
• Just Security’s Gaza coverage
• Just Security’s International Criminal Court coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Last month, Europe’s top human rights court issued a major decision in the fight against climate change. In KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, the highest chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that the Swiss government has violated the human rights of its citizens by not doing enough to address the threat of climate change. The decision is a landmark ruling for activists, lawyers, and communities who are trying to use human rights law to hold governments accountable for promises to fight global warming. 

But it’s not the only case asking what international law requires of nations when it comes to protecting the environment. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the International Court of Justice are all grappling with similar questions.

What do these cases mean for the fight against climate change? Where are the opportunities and risks? 

Joining the show to discuss the “Year of Climate” in international courts and tribunals are Naima Fifita and Joana Setzer. 

Naima is a lawyer from Tuvalu who has taken an active role in proceedings by small island nations before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Joana is an Associate Professorial Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). 

Show Notes: 

• Naima Fifita
• Joana Setzer (@JoanaSetzer)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Rebecca Hamilton’s Just Security article “The ‘Year of Climate’ in International Courts” 
• Just Security’s Climate Change coverage
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Curiosity” by “All Good Folks” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/all-good-folks/curiosity (License code: X6SN2UGIWYHPDJGF) 

In recent decades, the international community has sought to address the particular harms that women and girls experience in war. International law now punishes sexual violence in armed conflict. And there’s the Women, Peace and Security agenda, which the U.N. Security Council launched in 2000 with Resolution 1325. That requires member States to consider impacts of conflict based on gender and to involve women more in all aspects of conflict prevention, management, and resolution. 

But while some harms rightly receive coverage and draw condemnation, other forms of violence are overlooked.  In November 2023, the World Heath Organization estimated that there were 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza. Since the October 7th  Hamas terrorist attack, it is estimated that nearly 20,000 babies have been born into the humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded in the Gaza strip.

Around the world – from Ukraine to Sudan to Gaza – violence experienced by pregnant civilians, women giving birth, nursing women, and women struggling to survive in the period after childbirth remains entirely at the sidelines of global political conversations. 

Joining the show to discuss what experts call “obstetric harms” faced by women and girls in armed conflict and the obligations of combatants in the face of these risks, is Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. Fionnuala is the former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism, and a law professor at the University of Minnesota and at Queen’s University School of Law in Belfast, Northern Ireland. We’re honored to have her as an Executive Editor at Just Security. 

Show Notes: 

• Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (@NiAolainF)
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Fionnuala’s Just Security article “A Zone of Silence: Obstetric Violence in Gaza and Beyond”
• Just Security’s International Humanitarian Law (IHL) coverage
• Just Security’s Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) coverage
• Just Security’s U.N. Security Council coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On April 17, 2024, NYU School of Law hosted a panel of experts to discuss whether a former President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct that allegedly involved official acts during his tenure in office. The Supreme Court is considering that question in United States v. Trump and will hear oral argument in the case on April 25. 

The panel consisted of George Conway, a Contributing Writer at The Atlantic and Board President of the Society for the Rule of Law; Trevor Morrison the Eric M. and Laurie B. Roth Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus of NYU School of Law; and Kate Shaw a Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Andrew Weissmann, a Just Security Editor and Faculty Co-Director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law, moderated the discussion. 

Show Notes: 

• George Conway (@gtconway3d)
• Trevor Morrison
• Kate Shaw (@kateashaw1)
• Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_)
• Just Security’s Trump Trials coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Sudan and Gaza are teetering on the brink of man-made famine. 

In Sudan, fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the rival Rapid Support Forces has displaced more than 7 million people with 18 million people enduring acute food insecurity, and nearly 5 million of those suffering at emergency levels, according to the World Food Programme. 

In Gaza, Israel’s war against Hamas has left 1.1 million people, half the territory’s population, facing “catastrophic” food shortages, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification process.

Using starvation as a method of warfare is a war crime. And while the most urgent need is for immediate access to food and humanitarian aid, the crises in Sudan and Gaza also raise important questions about how to hold those responsible for potential atrocities to account. 

Joining the show to discuss the situations in Gaza and Sudan, whether the parties to the conflict might be committing the war crime of starvation of civilians, and what might be done about it, is leading expert Tom Dannenbaum.  

Tom is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he is also Co-Director of the Center for International Law and Governance. Tom is a foremost expert on international humanitarian law, including: starvation of civilians, siege warfare directed at a civilian population, and accountability for these acts. 

Show Notes:  

• Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) 
• Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Tom’s Just Security article “Does the ICC Have Jurisdiction Over the Starvation War Crime in Sudan?”
• Tom’s Just Security article “The Siege of Gaza and the Starvation War Crime”
• Just Security’s Sudan coverag
• Just Security’s Gaza coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Vladimir Putin recently claimed victory as Russia’s president despite extensive evidence that the “election” was illegitimate in a number of ways. His repression, including evidence of State-ordered assassinations and assassination attempts, and his manipulation of Russia’s legal systems and institutions seems to assure him power – and impunity.

Putin’s efforts to consolidate that power have included eliminating most political opposition and civil society organizations and forcing independent media to shut down or move their operations into exile. The recent death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a remote prison camp exemplified the threats to anyone deemed critical of the Kremlin.

The long arm of the Kremlin also extends far beyond its borders. In addition to the now decade-long war on Ukraine, which escalated into a full-scale invasion in February 2022, and military interventions in the Middle East and Africa, Russian exiles are also not immune from Putin’s wrath. 

Just Security's Washington Senior Editor Viola Gienger recently interviewed Gleb Bogush, a Russian lawyer and expert on international criminal law who fled Russia in 2022. 

Gleb is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center of Excellence for International Courts of the University of Copenhagen. He is also a member of the Cologne-Bonn Academy in Exile (CBA). Before 20222, he was an Associate Professor of International Law at the Moscow State University and HSE University in Russia, also known as the Higher School of Economics.

This conversation took place a day before the March 22 terrorist attack on a Moscow concert hall that killed more than 130 people. 

Show Notes: 

• Gleb Bogush (@gleb_bogush)
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Just Security’s Russia coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Haiti’s crisis of gang violence and political dysfunction has been spiraling out of control. The number of reported homicides more than doubled last year to almost 4,800, and kidnappings soared to almost 2,500 cases. Sexual violence is rampant, and 313,000 Haitians have fled their homes.

In recent weeks, the crisis has reached new heights. While de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry was out of the country, the gangs took advantage and rampaged across the capital, Port-au-Prince. According to the United Nations, since the start of the year, the gangs have killed over 1,100 people and injured nearly 700 others. 

As the gangs roam freely, the United States and Caribbean countries – in a bloc called CARICOM – are trying to mediate a solution. The result thus far – though still unfolding – is that Henry has agreed to resign as soon as a transitional council of possibly 9 members is formed and an interim prime minister is chosen. But many questions remain about how that council and the interim prime minister will be appointed, which segments of Haitian society will be represented on it, and how a potential Kenyan-led international policing mission might go forward.

Where does Haiti go from here?

Joining the show to discuss the security situation in Haiti, and how policymakers in the region and around the world are addressing it, are Rosy Auguste Ducéna and Beatrice Lindstrom. 

Rosy is a human rights lawyer and Program Manager for the National Network for the Defense of Human Rights (RNDDH) in Haiti and has testified before the U.S. Congress. Bea is a Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic. Prior to joining Harvard, she was the Legal Director of the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, which works to bring Haitian grassroots struggles for human rights to the international stage. 

Show Notes: 

• Rosy Auguste Ducéna (@AugusteRosy)
• Beatrice Lindstrom (@BeaLindstrom)
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Bea’s Just Security article “With Haiti on the Brink of Collapse, a Reckoning for US Policy on Haiti”
• Just Security’s Haiti coverage
• Just Security’s U.N. Security Council coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In the two years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, the fighting has caused widespread horror and devastation. Over 10,000 civilians have been killed and more than half a million people injured. Still millions of others are internally displaced, seeking refuge abroad, or are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. 

The idea of war – and how to prevent it – was a central concern when 51 nations came together to form the United Nations over seven decades ago. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine poses deep challenges to the international rules-based order and raises complex questions of international law, not only for Ukraine, but for nations around the world.

In partnership with the Ukrainian Association of International Law, which worked with other stakeholders such as the Ukrainian Bar Association, the American Society of International Law helped to convene a gathering of international lawyers in Lviv, Ukraine in December 2023. 

Lviv was home to three giants in the field of international law: Hersch Lauterpacht, Rafael Lemkin, and Louis Sohn. Lauterpacht developed the concept of crimes against humanity, Lemkin pioneered the term “genocide,” and pushed for the adoption of the U.N. Genocide Convention, and Sohn played a pivotal role in helping to conceptualize article 51 of the U.N. Charter on the right of self-defense. 

Many of those who gathered in Lviv are now sharing their reflections on the meeting in a Just Security symposium. Joining the show to discuss the symposium are four of its editors, Kateryna Busol, Olga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton, and Gregory Shaffer.  

Kateryna is a Ukrainian lawyer and an Associate Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Olga is President of the Ukrainian Association of International Law and Chaired Professor of Law at Kyiv’s National University of Taras Shevchenko. Rebecca is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University, Washington College of Law. Greg is the Scott K Ginsburg Professor of International Law at Georgetown University Law Center and the President of the American Society of International Law. 

Show Notes:  

• Kateryna Busol (@KaterynaBusol)
• Olga Butkevych
• Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton)
• Gregory Shaffer (@gregorycshaffer) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s symposium “International Law in the Face of Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv” 
• Patryk I. Labuda’s (@PILabuda) Just Security article “Accountability for Russian Imperialism in the ‘Global East’”
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbe

On March 6, 2024, Just Security and the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law co-hosted an all-star panel of experts to discuss the issue of government “jawboning” – a practice of informal government efforts to persuade, or strong-arm, private platforms to change their content-moderation practices. Many aspects of jawboning remain unsettled but could come to a head later this month when the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case called Murthy v. Missouri on March 18. 

Murthy poses several questions that defy easy answer, driving at the heart of how we wish to construct and regulate what some consider to be the modern public square.

The expert panel consists of Jameel Jaffer, the Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and an Executive Editor at Just Security; Kathryn Ruemmler, the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of Goldman Sachs and former White House Counsel to President Barack Obama; and Colin Stretch, the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of Etsy and the former General Counsel of Facebook (now Meta). Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, moderated the discussion. 

This NYU Law Forum was sponsored by the law firm Latham & Watkins. 

Show Notes: 

• Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) 
• Kathryn Ruemmler
• Colin Stretch
• Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) 
• Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law
• Just Security’s First Amendment coverage
• Just Security’s Content Moderation coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On February 27, 2024, Just Security hosted a live event for the launch of Professor Barbara McQuade’s new book, Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America. Barbara is an Editor at Just Security and a Professor from Practice at the University of Michigan Law School. She joined NYU Professor of History and Italian Studies Ruth Ben-Ghiat for a conversation about the book followed by questions from the audience. 

Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, introduced Barbara and Ruth. This event was co-sponsored with the NYU Institute for Public Knowledge and the American Constitution Society.  

Show Notes: 

• Barbara McQuade (@BarbMcQuade)
• Ruth Ben-Ghiat (@ruthbenghiat)
• Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) 
• NYU Institute for Public Knowledge
• American Constitution Society
• Just Security excerpt of Barbara’s book, Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America published by Seven Stories Press
• Just Security’s Disinformation coverage
• Just Security’s Rule of Law coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On Feb. 29, 2024, Just Security welcomed the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, to NYU School of Law for an event in celebration of Just Security’s 10th anniversary year.

Just Security’s Co-Editors-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman, introduced Director Haines who delivered remarks regarding strategic declassification, the role of law, and transparency in the intelligence community. Director Haines then joined NYU School of Law Dean Troy McKenzie for a question and answer fireside chat. 

Show Notes: 

• Avril Haines
• Troy McKenzie
• Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)
• Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) 
• Just Security
• Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Late one evening in January 2013, a group of men carrying Kalashnikov rifles approached another man. Their faces were hidden behind balaclavas and they smelled of alcohol. It was the height of the Syrian civil war, and the group of men were supporters of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. They arrested the man and handed him over to Syrian Air Force intelligence officials who detained and tortured him. 

A Dutch court recently convicted one of those masked men involved in the arrest, known in court papers as Mustafa A., of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  

The verdict is the first time that a Dutch court has convicted a defendant who supported Assad’s regime during the civil war, and it is the latest example of how courts across Europe are playing an active role in holding perpetrators of atrocity crimes to account. 

Joining the show to discuss the case and its implications are Fritz Streiff and Hope Rikkelman. Fritz and Hope work with The Nuhanovic Foundation, a nonprofit organization which helps to secure justice and reparations for civilian victims of war and conflict. The Foundation played an active role in this case. 

Show Notes: 

• Fritz Streiff (@fritz_streiff) 
• Hope Rikkelman (@HRikkelman) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Fritz and Hope’s Just Security article on the Syria war crimes prosecution
• Just Security’s atrocities coverage
• Just Security’s Syria coverage
• Just Security’s universal jurisdiction coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Vladimir Kara-Murza is one of Russia’s most famous political prisoners. He is a longtime opposition leader and prominent guest columnist for The Washington Post who was poisoned twice in incidents that are widely attributed to the Kremlin. And yet, like another famous opposition leader currently imprisoned in Russia, Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza was determined to return to his homeland to continue his human rights work after recovering from attempts on his life. In April 2022, Russian authorities arrested him and charged him with “high treason.” He was eventually sentenced to 25 years in prison. 

In late January, Vladimir’s wife, Evgenia, reported that he had been moved from his prison and that his whereabouts were unknown. Though he has now resurfaced at a new prison in Siberia, Vladimir is being held in the strictest form of isolation and his situation remains dire. 

In Russia and other repressive countries, the situation is also dire for the lawyers trying to defend those political prisoners. The lawyers often face threats to their lives or threats of prosecution themselves simply for doing their jobs. 

Joining the show to discuss Vladimir Kara-Murza’s case, and the broader risks facing political prisoners and lawyers in Russia, are Vladimir’s wife, Evgenia Kara-Murza, and his lawyer for more than 10 years, Vadim Prokhorov. Evgenia is Advocacy Director of the Free Russia Foundation and has tirelessly advocated for the rights of her husband and other political prisoners in Russia, and Vadim has represented a range of Kremlin critics who’ve been targeted by the regime, including opposition politicians and anti-corruption campaigners. He was forced to flee Russia last April, just days before Vladimir’s sentence was handed down, because the prosecutor and the judge in the case threatened to prosecute him, too.

Show Notes: 

• Evgenia Kara-Murza (@ekaramurza)
• Vadim Prokhorov
• Vladimir Kara-Murza (@vkaramurza)
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Free Russia Foundation
• The American Bar Association’s Justice Defenders Program
• Vadim’s Just Security article “A Lawyer for Political Prisoners on Why He Fled Russia”
• Just Security’s Russia coverage
• Just Security’s Rule of Law coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Caravan” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/caravan (License code: QVHYMGIQGD5TGMEP)

From products like ChatGPT to resource allocation and cancer diagnoses, artificial intelligence will impact nearly every part of our lives. We know the potential benefits of AI are enormous, but so are the risks, including chemical and bioweapons attacks, more effective disinformation campaigns, AI-enabled cyber-attacks, and lethal autonomous weapons systems. 

Policymakers have taken steps to address these risks, but industry and civil society leaders are warning that these efforts still fall short. 

Last year saw a flurry of efforts to regulate AI. In October, the Biden administration issued an executive order to encourage “responsible” AI development, in November, the U.K. hosted the world’s first global AI Safety Summit to explore how best to mitigate some of the greatest risks facing humanity, and in December European Union policymakers passed a deal imposing new transparency requirements on AI systems. 

Are efforts to regulate AI working? What else needs to be done? That’s the focus of our show today. 

It’s clear we are at an inflection point in AI governance – where innovation is outpacing regulation. But while States face a common problem in regulating AI, approaches differ and prospects for global cooperation appear limited. 

There is no better expert to navigate this terrain than Robert Trager, Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative, and International Governance Lead at the Centre for the Governance of AI. 

Show Notes: 

• Robert Trager (@RobertTrager) 
• Brianna Rosen (@rosen_br)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s Symposium on AI Governance: Power, Justice, and the Limits of the Law
• Just Security’s Artificial Intelligence coverage
• Just Security’s Autonomous Weapons Systems coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On Friday, January 26, the International Court of Justice issued its Opinion granting provisional measures in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel.  At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court did not determine whether Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide – that potential determination is left for what is known as the “merits” phase of the case, which will likely occur years from now. 

Instead, today the Court held that Israel’s actions to minimize harm to civilians did not sufficiently remove the risk of irreparable harm and ordered Israel to take specific actions including refraining from acts under the Genocide Convention, preventing and punishing incitement to genocide and taking effective measures to allow for the provision of humanitarian assistance, among others. 

Joining the show to discuss the Court’s Opinion and its implications are law professors Adil Haque, Oona Hathaway, and Yuval Shany. They have each written extensively about the case and its potential impact, including on Just Security. 

Show Notes: 

• Adil Ahmad Haque (@AdHaque110)
• Oona A. Hathaway (@oonahathaway) 
• Yuval Shany (@yuvalshany1) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s South Africa v. Israel coverage  
• Just Security’s Israel-Hamas war coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “The World Between Us” by Cory Alstad from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/cory-alstad/the-wound-between-us (License code: GMVY1M06I3QWDKJJ)

This week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders used a little-known, decades-old law to force the Senate to vote on whether to request an investigation of potential human rights abuses by Israel in its war against Hamas. The obscure process that Sanders used is known as Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act. The law allows Congress to request a mandatory human rights report from the State Department on a specified country. And if the State Department does not provide a report within 30 days of the request, U.S. security assistance to the target country stops. 

While the resolution ultimately failed on January 16, it shows that Section 502B has the potential to become a powerful tool for forcing public discussion about alleged human rights and the United States’ role in facilitating them. 

Joining the show to unpack how Section 502B works, along with its history and new efforts to use it, is John Chappell. John is an Advocacy & Legal Fellow at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC). He’s an expert on Section 502B. 

Show Notes: 

• John Ramming Chappell (@jwrchappell) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• John’s Just Security article on Senator Sanders’ Section 502B resolution 
• Just Security’s arms sales coverage
• Just Security’s Congressional oversight coverage
• Just Security’s Israel-Hamas War coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This year’s version of the U.N. climate meeting, or COP, concluded last week in the United Arab Emirates. Nearly 200 nations from around the world agreed to a historic deal to transition away from fossil fuels in a “just, orderly and equitable manner” and leaders pledged $700 million in funds to address the loss and damage from climate change. 

But as with any global agreement, now comes the hard part of turning words on paper into reality as countries decide how to implement their new commitments. 

Joining the show to discuss the developments at COP28 and what comes next is Mark Nevitt. Mark is a professor at Emory Law School and an expert on climate change.

Show Notes: 

• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Mark P. Nevitt (@MarkNevitt) 
• Mark’s Just Security article “Assessing COP 28: The New Global Climate Deal in Dubai” 
• Just Security’s COP28 coverage
• Just Security’s climate change coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Breathing Water (Solo Piano)” by Cedric Vermue from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/cedric-vermue/breathing-water-solo-piano (License code: MH0XYFEO1YABWIMJ)

The 2024 U.S. presidential election is less than a year away and the primary process starts in January.

The election will serve as a stress test for American democracy: Will candidates accept the results? Will voters? Are governments and social media platforms ready for a barrage of disinformation? And can election administrators maintain confidence in free and fair elections as they work with constantly shifting election laws, court rulings, and voter suppression efforts?

Joining the show to discuss how election administrators are preparing for 2024 and the risks they are confronting now is Allison Mollenkamp. Allison is a Fellow at Just Security and recently interviewed election officials from eight states around the country.  

Show Notes: 

• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Allison Mollenkamp
• Allison’s Just Security article “America’s Election Officials Fight Disinformation and Death Threats Ahead of 2024”
• Just Security’s U.S. election protection coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Breathing Water (Solo Piano)” by Cedric Vermue from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/cedric-vermue/breathing-water-solo-piano (License code: MH0XYFEO1YABWIMJ)

On Monday, Dec. 4, 2023, the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law and Just Security co-hosted an expert discussion entitled “Toward a Goldilocks Deal on Section 702 Surveillance Reform.” 

This Podcast episode is the audio from that discussion, which was co-moderated by Senior Counsel at Perkins Coie LLP and former Justice Department counterespionage prosecutor and FISA oversight attorney David Aaron and Just Security Co-Editor-in-Chief and former Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council and Special Assistant to the President Tess Bridgeman.

The panelists were: Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein the Senior Director of the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice; Andrew McCabe the Former Acting Director and Deputy Director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Mary McCord the Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center. 

Show Notes: 

• David Aaron (@davidcaaron) 
• Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)
• Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein (@LizaGoitein) 
• Andrew G. McCabe
• Mary B. McCord
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s FISA Section 702 coverage
• Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Eyes Closed” by Tobias Voigt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/tobias-voigt/eyes-closed (License code: XTRHPYM1ELYU8SVA) 

This week, world leaders, diplomats, climate activists, journalists, and fossil fuel executives will meet in Dubai for the United Nations’ annual Climate Change Conference. While many discussions will build on last year’s COP, where nations agreed to fund loss and damage from climate change, another focus will be on who is sidelined from the discussions. 

The United Arab Emirates has reportedly hired an army of public relations experts to help manage its reputation during the two-week event and to keep international attention away from its crackdown on civic space. Meanwhile, some of the world’s largest democracies, including governments that have traditionally championed human rights, lack a clear vision for protecting civic space in the climate talks, even though Indigenous communities, social justice movements, and human rights defenders are at the forefront of fighting climate change.

Joining the show to discuss the role of civil society at COP 28 is Kirk Herbertson. Kirk is a Senior Policy Advisor at EarthRights International, a nonprofit organization that “combines the power of law with the power of people in defense of human rights and the environment.” 

Show Notes: 

• Kirk Herbertson (@KirkHerbertson) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Kirk’s Just Security article “To Avert Climate Crisis, Democracies Need to Protect Civic Space”
• Just Security’s climate change coverage
• Just Security’s civil society coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “The World Between Us” by Corey Alstad from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/cory-alstad/the-wound-between-us (License code: DBNNNNMVJSCUU65C)

Some of the biggest risks to human rights in the twenty-first century come from governments misusing surveillance technology originally designed to combat counterterrorism. These spyware tools are manufactured around the world, including in the United States, the European Union, China, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates. 

The technology is difficult to detect and allows access to a target’s communications, contacts, and geolocation and metadata. It can even delete information or plant incriminating data on a person’s phone. Now, nations are using it to spy on politicians, journalists, human rights activists, lawyers, and ordinary citizens with no links to terrorism. 

As a reminder, this is Part 2 of a conversation with Fionnuala Ni Aoláin. Fionnuala recently completed her tenure as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism.

For nearly six years, she examined global and country counterterrorism practices and how they do or don’t comply with human rights standards. To hear Part 1 of our discussion, including Fionnuala’s insights from her experience documenting the conditions at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in prisons and sprawling camps in Northeast Syria, please tune in to last week’s episode, which you can find in the show notes and on our website. 

Show Notes:

• Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (@NiAolainF)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Part 1 of our conversation with Fionnuala 
• Fionnuala and Adriana Edmeades Jones’ Just Security article “Spyware Out of the Shadows”  
• Just Security’s Ending Perpetual War Symposium 
• Just Security’s counterterrorism coverage
• Just Security’s technology coverage
• The U.N. Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights’ website (including reports during Fionnuala's term, which ended Oct. 31)
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Gnome” by Danijel Zambo from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/danijel-zambo/gnome (License code: MIZAQ1JSL9JRTUN8)

More than two decades after the 9/11 attacks, counterterrorism still dominates most security policies and practices around the world, including at the United Nations.

And yet, the problem of terrorism persists around the world – from southwestern Pakistan, to the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, to the Sahel.

Across the board, nations are failing to address the root causes of extremism. 

What might alternative approaches to counterterrorism look like? 

Perhaps no one is better equipped to consider the impact of counterterrorism on human rights than Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. This is Part 1 of a special two-part conversation. Please join us next week for Fionnuala’s insights into the human rights implications caused by spyware and personal data collection. 

Fionnuala recently completed her tenure as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism. She was the first U.N. expert to visit the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and issued a landmark report on how Guantanamo deprives both the detainees and the 9/11 victims of the justice they all deserve. She assessed the conditions in prisons and camps in northeast Syria that still hold over 50,000 people more than 5 years after the defeat of the Islamic State. She raised awareness of the role of gender in counterterrorism and of the repressive effect of counterterrorism tactics on civil society, and she enumerated the ever-expanding counterterrorism mandate at the U.N. 

Fionnuala is a law professor at the University of Minnesota  and at Queens University School of Law in Belfast, Northern Ireland and an executive editor at Just Security.

Show Notes:  

• Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (@NiAolainF)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Part 2 of our conversation with Fionnuala
• Fionnuala’s Just Security article “Rethinking Counterterrorism” 
• Just Security's Ending Perpetual War Symposium 
• Just Security’s counterterrorism coverage
• Just Security northeast Syria coverage
• Just Security’s Guantanamo coverage
• The U.N. Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights’ website (including reports during Fionnuala's term, which ended Oct. 31)
• The Guantánamo Artwork and Testimony of Moath Al-Alwi: Deaf Walls Speak (Alexandra S. Moore and Elizabeth Swanson, Editors)
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Moving” by Brock Hewitt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-stories-in-sound/moving (License code: JIUYKTT0FITX2S4X)

Across the United States, book bans, and attempted book bans, have hit a record high. Driven in part by newly passed state laws, public schools have seen a thirty-three percent increase in banned books. 

The vague and subjective language used in these laws leave school boards struggling to figure out exactly what content is prohibited. Some school boards, like the Mason City School District in Iowa, have turned to ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence to comply with these new state laws. 

But, the inconsistency and limitations of AI technology have led to over inclusive results that disproportionately flag content about the experiences of women and marginalized communities, and raise concerns about free speech and censorship. 

Joining the show to discuss AI and its effect on book bans is Emile Ayoub.

Emile is counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program where he focuses on the impact of technology on civil rights and liberties.

Show Notes: 

• Emile Ayoub (@eayoubg)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Emile and Faiza Patel’s (@FaizaPatelBCJ) Just Security article on using AI to comply with book bans
• Just Security’s Artificial Intelligence coverage
• Just Security’s content moderation coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Tunnel” by Danijel Zambo from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/danijel-zambo/tunnel (License code: SBF0UK70L6NH9R3G)

In response to Hamas’ brutal attacks that killed at least 1,400 Israeli civilians and continues with 200 hostages in Hamas control, Israel has imposed a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip. This includes blocking access to electricity, food, and fuel. While Israeli authorities have restored some access to water in southern Gaza the supply remains limited. 

For the over 2 million civilians in Gaza, the siege has created dire humanitarian conditions. Hospitals are quickly running out of medical supplies, and the International Committee of the Red Cross recently said that humanitarian organizations will not be able to provide life-saving assistance with the siege in place.

Joining the show to discuss the siege, and how international law applies to it, is Tom Dannenbaum. 

Tom is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University where he is also Co-Director of the Center for International Law and Governance. Tom is an expert on international humanitarian law, including siege starvation. 

Show Notes: 

• Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Tom’s Just Security article on the siege of Gaza and the starvation war crime
• Mark Zeitoun’s Just Security article on access to water in Gaza 
• Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw), Michael Meier (@MWMeier23), and Tess Bridgeman’s (@bridgewriter) expert guidance on the law of armed conflict 
• Just Security’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the U.S. Department of Defense is one of the biggest – and hardest – jobs in Washington. Colin Kahl served in that role for more than two years. From April 2021 to July 2023, he was the principal adviser to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for all matters related to national security and defense policy, oversaw the writing of the 2022 National Defense Strategy, which focused on the “pacing challenge” posed by China, and he led the Department’s response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, among other international crises. He also led other major defense diplomacy initiatives, like U.S. efforts to revitalize the NATO alliance. 

Kahl has had a long career in government and public service. During the Obama administration, he served as Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to then-Vice President Biden. Before that, he served in the Pentagon as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East for nearly three years.

Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman recently sat down with Kahl, who is now a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, for an exit interview.

Show Notes: 

• Colin Kahl (@ColinKahl)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter) 
• Just Security’s China coverage  
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverage
• Just Security’s artificial intelligence coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Lilac” by “Night Drift” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/night-drift/lilac (License code: CFXEBHMVBA8FXVNC) 

Last week, world leaders arrived in New York for the U.N. General Assembly’s High-Level meetings. They debated the response to Russia’s continued full-scale invasion of Ukraine, made some progress on sustainable development, and considered how to regulate artificial intelligence.  

Returning to the show to discuss what we learned from the U.N.’s High-Level week is Richard Gowan. Richard is U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an independent organization working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world. 

Show Notes: 

• Richard Gowan (@RichardGowan1) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Richard’s Just Security article recapping UNGA 78
• Just Security’s U.N. General Assembly coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverage
• Just Security’s climate change coverage
• Just Security’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Hypotheticals” by “AK” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/ak/hypothetical (License code: ZYWSWAROJNPTCX30) 

In 2018, the Supreme Court created a revolution in the Fourth Amendment. In Carpenter v. United States, the Court found that the government needed a warrant to obtain data about the cell phone towers to which a person connected when using their phone. That data can reveal the digital breadcrumbs of a person’s life – including where they went and how long they stayed. But cell phone users give that location data to their phone providers, third-party companies like AT&T and Verizon. Those companies don’t have the legal ability to challenge a government’s request for the user’s data. In fact, the companies often can’t even notify the user about a request for information. This creates a paradox. Cell phone users, the people who have a Fourth Amendment right to challenge the government’s request for information, don’t know the government is requesting it and third-party companies know about the request but can’t challenge it in court. 

The third-party paradox has massive implications for privacy rights and raises important questions about how to challenge the government’s request for information that might be protected by the Fourth Amendment. 

Joining the show to discuss the third-party paradox and the Fourth Amendment is Michael Dreeben. Michael argued Carpenter and over 100 other cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government. He is now a partner at the law firm O’Melveny & Myers, a Distinguished Lecturer from Government at Georgetown University Law Center, and a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. 

Show Notes: 

• Michael Dreeben
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Resolving Carpenter’s Third-Party Paradox (Part I and Part II) 
• Just Security’s Fourth Amendment coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “The Clock is Ticking” by Simon Folwar from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/the-clock-is-ticking (License code: FY1TG2G1ESDYMSHF)

The U.N. General Assembly’s annual meeting is underway in New York. Leaders from around the world will attend the High-Level Week, which begins on September 18. On the agenda are topics ranging from the continuing response Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, to slow progress on sustainable development, and the looming regulation of artificial intelligence. 

Joining the show to discuss what we expect from this year’s U.N. General Assembly meetings is Richard Gowan. Richard is U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an independent organization working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world.

Show Notes: 

• Richard Gowan (@RichardGowan1) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Richard’s Just Security article previewing UNGA 78
• Just Security’s U.N. General Assembly coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverage
• Just Security’s climate change coverage
• Just Security’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Hypotheticals” by “AK” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/ak/hypothetical (License code: ZYWSWAROJNPTCX30) 

Two decades ago, leaders from around the world had a moment of reckoning. The images and news reports of genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were still fresh memories, and many countries recognized they hadn’t done enough to respond or prevent the violence. So diplomats at the United Nations had a bold idea. That countries have a collective responsibility to protect their people from war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. This responsibility includes using diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means to help each country protect its own citizens, but nations also agreed that they were “prepared to take collective action” when peaceful means prove inadequate and national authorities fail to act.  

Today, the responsibility to protect, or R2P as it’s often called, is being tested as mass atrocities occur around the world – from Ukraine to Myanmar to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But, whose responsibility it is to protect – or act – is uncertain.

Even at the U.N., no clear direction has emerged. In June, the U.N.’s top official on R2P, George Okoth-Obbo, said he would resign from his role as Special Advisor after just 17 months. Okoth-Obbo isn’t alone. The previous two R2P Special Advisors left after less than 3 years. The Special Advisor’s short tenure leaves people facing atrocity crimes without an ally and advocate at the U.N. 

Joining the show to discuss the R2P Special Advisor’s role, and why the office has seen so much turnover, is Rebecca Barber. Up until recently Rebecca was a research fellow at the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, and she is also an honorary senior research fellow at the University of Queensland. 

Show Notes: 

• Rebecca Barber (@becjbarber) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Rebecca’s Just Security article analyzing the U.N.’s support for the R2P Special Advisor
• Just Security’s coverage of the R2P 
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “A Simple Life” by Brock Hewitt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-stories-in-sound/a-simple-life (License code: WIXYQUFKZO5KP7GO) 

In October 2019, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed during a U.S. military raid on his compound in Syria. Former President Donald Trump called the raid “impeccable,” and the Defense Department said that no civilians were harmed in the operation. 

But reporting from NPR determined that two civilians were killed and a third lost his arm from U.S. airstrikes. The Defense Department disagreed and dismissed NPR’s claims as “not credible” based in part on a lack of metadata in images that NPR and Airwars, a watchdog group that monitors the civilian impact of military actions, provided. 

Until now, the U.S. military appears to have never required metadata for images to be considered as evidence. If this new standard continues, it will be much harder for researchers and journalists to collect and submit evidence of civilian harm in U.S. military operations, which erodes accountability when harm occurs.  

Joining the show to discuss the Baghdadi raid and the U.S. response to claims of civilian harm are Airwars Director Emily Tripp and Conflict Researcher Anna Zahn. 

Show Notes:  

• Emily Tripp (@Emily_4319) 
• Anna Zahn
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Anna’s Just Security article on the al-Baghdadi raid
• NPR’s reporting on Syrian casualties in the raid (also in Arabic) 
• Just Security’s coverage of civilian harm 
• Just Security’s coverage of the Department of Defense’s Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP)
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Abide” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/abide (License code: OSHRWBZJ90OZARBA)

Former President Donald Trump is now facing his fourth criminal case. 

On Monday, August 14, a grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others, including his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, over their alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. The indictment charges that the defendants engaged in a sweeping criminal enterprise, which involved submitting false slates of electors, pressuring state officials, breaching voting data, and perjury, among other conduct.  

Joining the show to discuss the most recent Trump indictment, we have Ambassador Norman Eisen. Norm is the former U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic and has also served as special counsel and special assistant to the president for ethics and government reform. In 2019 and 2020, he served as special counsel on the House Judiciary Committee majority during Trump’s impeachment proceedings and trial. Norm has written extensively about the Georgia indictment. 

Show Notes: 

• Ambassador Norman Eisen (@NormEisen) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s Georgia indictment coverage  
• Just Security’s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith 
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR) 

The criminal charges against Donald Trump continue to pile up.

On July 27, a superseding indictment was filed in the classified documents case against Trump, adding three additional charges to the 37 originally filed in June. Five days later, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a new indictment over the former president’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The superseding indictment in the classified documents case alleges that Trump violated the Espionage Act by retaining a classified document described as a “presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country,” at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and that Trump conspired with two associates, Carlos De Oliveira and Walt Nauta, to obstruct justice by attempting to delete security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago in order to conceal it from the FBI and a grand jury. 

Joining the show to discuss the additional charges in the classified documents case is David Aaron. 

David is a Senior Counsel in the Washington, D.C. and New York offices of the law firm Perkins Coie. Before joining private practice, David was a prosecutor in the Justice Department's National Security Division, where he prosecuted Espionage Act violations and saw how the process works from the inside. This conversation was recorded on July 30, 2023. 

Show Notes: 

• David Aaron (@davidcaaron)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s Espionage Act coverage
• Just Security’s classified information coverage
• Just Security’s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith 
• Just Security’s Trump Classified Docs Clearinghouse
• Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter) and Ryan Goodman’s (@rgoodlaw) Just Security article on the national security implications of the superseding indictment 
• Brian D. Greer (@secretsandlaws) and Wendy Leben’s Just Security Podcast episode on the presidential classification and declassification process 
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR) 

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, diplomats, lawyers, and advocates from around the world have pushed for ways to hold Vladimir Putin and other senior leaders accountable for starting the war. Those efforts include creating a court to prosecute the international crime of aggression – the illegal use of force by one country against another. 

But 3,000 miles south of the Russia-Ukraine border, another potential act of aggression has received far less attention. Over the past year and a half, Rwandan troops have conducted military operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and engaged in direct combat with the Congolese military and armed groups. According to the United Nations and human rights groups Rwandan troops have actively supported the March 23 Movement, M23, a Congolese armed group with longstanding ties to the Rwandan government. 

Accountability for the crime of aggression nmatters because acts of aggression can lead to other grave crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Punishing the crime of aggression is also essential to protecting the sovereign rights of all States, no matter their size or military strength. 

Joining the show to discuss the situation in the DRC, the arguments that Rwanda is committing acts of aggression against Congo, and Rwanda’s likely responses is Daniel Levine-Spound.

Daniel is a human rights lawyer and researcher. He is currently a Fellow at the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict. Daniel was previously a U.N. Peacekeeping Researcher covering the DRC and South Sudan at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) and was based in Goma, DRC.

Show Notes: 

• Daniel Levine-Spound (@dlspound) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Daniel’s Just Security article on potential acts of Rwandan aggression against the DRC 
• Just Security’s DRC coverage
• Just Security’s Rwanda coverage
• Just Security’s crime of aggression coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Caravan” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/caravan (License code: QVHYMGIQGD5TGMEP)

Since former President Donald Trump was indicted for retaining sensitive government documents at Mar-a-Lago, the Espionage Act has become a household term. But only a small number of lawyers have seen an Espionage Act trial from the inside. Just Security has assembled an all-star roundtable of experienced federal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have handled high-profile Espionage Act cases. 

Joining the show to share their insights, experience, and views on Trump’s Espionage Act charges are David Aaron, Andrew Weissmann, and Jim Wyda. David and Jim have previously faced off from opposite sides of an Espionage Act prosecution, but they’ve come together for this special discussion. 

Before he joined private practice, David was a prosecutor at the Justice Department’s National Security Division. Andrew has served in many senior Justice Department roles, including on the leadership team for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and as the General Counsel of the FBI. Jim is the Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland. 

This episode is hosted by Paras Shah, with co-production and editing by Tiffany Chang, Michelle Eigenheer, and Allison Mollenkamp. 

Show Notes:  

• David Aaron (@davidcaaron)
• Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_) 
• James Wyda
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s Espionage Act coverage
• Just Security’s classified information coverage
• Just Security’s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith 
• Just Security’s Trump Classified Docs Clearinghouse
• Brian D. Greer (@secretsandlaws) and Wendy Leben’s Just Security Podcast episode on the presidential classification and declassification process 
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

Today, July 12, the leaders of NATO member countries are wrapping up a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. The meeting opened as Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ended his opposition to NATO membership for Sweden, and as President Biden said Ukraine still needs to take steps before it can join the Alliance. Biden further said Ukraine shouldn’t be admitted while Russia’s invasion continues because that would pit the Alliance directly against Russia.

In 2008, Alliance members vaguely promised that Ukraine could join NATO, but left the timing unspecified. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made it clear he believes his country deserves membership, particularly as it fights for its survival against Russian aggression and defends democratic values.

But the agreement NATO members reached this week only offers Ukraine membership “when allies agree, and conditions are met,” though the Alliance did put together a package of weapons and security assurances in the meantime.

To discuss the summit and unpack its implications, we have Ambassador Daniel Fried. 

During his 40 years in the foreign service, Ambassador Fried played a central role in implementing U.S. policy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. In several senior roles including, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Ambassador Fried helped craft the policy of NATO enlargement to Central European countries and NATO-Russia relations. Earlier, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. He is currently the Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, which co-hosted a public forum with other think tanks as part of the NATO summit.  

Show Notes: 

• Ambassador Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried) 
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Ambassador Fried’s Just Security article previewing the NATO Summit 
• Just Security’s NATO coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Underworld” by “Revo” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/revo/underworld (License code: MWDRAARUCSZNLOLV)

On July 4th a federal judge restricted the Biden administration from contacting social media companies about their content moderation policies. The court found that federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI, could not flag specific posts to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to encourage them to remove content. Though the order provides exceptions for the government to contact or notify social media companies about posts that involve crimes, national security threats, foreign attempts to influence elections, and other similar risks to public safety.

While an appeal in the case, Missouri v. Biden, is pending, the decision is a major development in the legal fight over online speech and the First Amendment. Some elected Republicans have accused social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube of disproportionately silencing conservative viewpoints, while others argue that content moderation is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation and hate speech. 

To unpack the initial decision in Missouri v. Biden, and what it means for the First Amendment and online speech, we have Mayze Teitler. 

Mayze is a Legal Fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute where they focus on the surveillance of incarcerated people, spyware, and government transparency. 

Show Notes: 

• Mayze Teitler (@amteitler)
• Knight First Amendment Institute (@knightcolumbia) 
• Judge Doughty’s preliminary injunction order in Missouri v. Biden
• Leah Litman and Laurence Tribe’s Just Security article analyzing the decision 
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “The Air We Breathe” by Apex Music from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/apex-music/the-air-we-breathe (License code: W8V6DMNKHYYQ26Y8)

From massive floods, to sweeping hurricanes, to raging wildfires, climate disasters seem constant. Last November, the United Nation’s climate conference, COP 27, grabbed global headlines when countries reached a historic deal to compensate vulnerable countries for loss and damage from climate change. It’s easy to see the scale of that loss and damage. Lives are lost, cultural sites disappear, and infrastructure like roads and bridges are destroyed. 

But other aspects of climate change and its impact remain hidden from view. For people with disabilities, climate disasters can mean being abandoned by family and friends. And accessibility barriers can mean people with disabilities lack equal access to basic needs, like food and shelter. 

People with disabilities are the world’s largest minority. And disability doesn’t discriminate – anyone can acquire a disability at any time, no matter who they are or where they live. Creating inclusive disaster and climate response benefits all of us.  

To explain how climate disasters impact people with disabilities, and how response systems can be improved, we have Professor Michael Ashely Stein.

Dr. Stein is the co-founder and Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. He is an expert on disability law and policy and was active in the drafting of the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

Show Notes:  

• Michael Ashley Stein
• Harvard Law School Project on Disability (HPOD) 
• Just Security’s coverage of COP27 and climate change
• 18:05 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Moving” by Brock Hewitt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-stories-in-sound/moving (License code: 6SUZDR0XMAYULP1B)

As the investigations and trials related to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol continue, convictions and sentences have piled up. More than half of those arrested have pleaded guilty, and among those convicted at trial, are leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.

Though these groups became famous for their roles in the January 6th attack, they were active long before efforts to “Stop the Steal.” The Proud Boys, in particular, are on a mission to undermine the rights of queer and trans people across the country. 

But how have they gone from the insurrection to protests at drag shows? Insight from the hours of depositions and expert statements collected during the January 6th Committee’s investigation show a direct line from the Capitol attack to the Proud Boy’s current views on gay and trans rights. Because, for groups like the Proud Boys, that tout what they call “western chauvinist” values, securing Donald Trump’s seat in the White House was just part of preserving a power structure that depends on narrow constructions of gender and family structure. It’s a power structure that harms those who don’t fit into the mold of a Proud Boy.

To walk us through how anti-LGBTQ views fit into the Proud Boys’ ideology, we have Jacob Glick. Jacob is a Policy Counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law. As an Investigative Counsel on the January 6th Committee, Jacob interviewed Proud Boys members for dozens of hours and heard their views directly.  

Show Notes: 

• Jacob Glick (@jhglick)
• Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection’s (ICAP) Pride Guidance
• Just Security’s compilation of Expert Statements on Democracy and Political Violence, submitted to January 6th Committee
• Mary McCord and Jacob’s Just Security article on anti-democracy schemes and paramilitary violence and Mary’s articleanalyzing seditious conspiracy charges 
• Just Security’s January 6th Clearinghouse
• 27:00 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Lion’s Roar” by “Yeti” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/yeti-music/lions-roar (License code: KKOXDIKNIPMGNR2U)

On Friday, June 9, a federal court in Florida unsealed an indictment charging former President Donald Trump with willfully retaining national defense information, refusing to return it, and obstructing related investigations. The 38 counts allege that Trump violated the Espionage Act, conspired to obstruct justice, withheld and hid documents, and caused false statements to be made to federal investigators and a grand jury.

Espionage Act cases are complex and important. They often require prosecutors to balance the need to protect sensitive intelligence information from being disclosed at trial with a defendant’s constitutional and due process rights not to be convicted by secret evidence. And disclosure of classified information can expose critical sources and methods of intelligence, including human sources, to harm.

Joining us to explain how Espionage Act prosecutions work, and what to expect in Trump’s case, is David Aaron. 

David is a Senior Counsel at the Washington, D.C., and New York offices of the law firm Perkins Coie. Before joining private practice, David was a prosecutor with the Justice Department’s National Security Division. He’s prosecuted Espionage Act violations and has seen how the process works from the inside. 

Show Notes: 

• David Aaron
• Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)
• David’s Just Security article on the Classified Information Procedures Act 
• Tess Bridgeman and Brianna Rosen's Just Security article on the national security implications of the indictment 
• Just Security’s Espionage Act coverage
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

From Donald Trump to Joe Biden, presidents have made a lot of news for keeping classified documents in their homes and offices. Presidential classification and declassification is a mysterious process that often unfolds away from public view. President Trump even famously claimed that he could declassify a document just by thinking about it.

Trump's comments raised an important question: What exactly is the process for presidents to classify and declassify information? The answer matters because classified documents can contain some of the United States’ most closely guarded secrets, including the location and identities of intelligence sources abroad. Declassification is equally important for promoting government accountability, and helping the public understand government policies and actions. 

To help us understand how the presidential classification and declassification process works in practice, we have Brian Greer and Wendy Leben. For nearly a decade, Brian was an attorney in the CIA's Office of General Counsel. And Wendy was a senior intelligence analyst in the Department of Defense for 13 years, including seven deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Show Notes: 

• Brian Greer (@secretsandlaws)
• Wendy Leben
• Brian and Wendy’s Just Security article analyzing U.S. government classification and declassification processes
• Just Security’s classified information coverage
• 19:20 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Backed Vibes” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/backed-vibes (License code: K8XOQNJSNLOU5C8G) 

This year, a key U.S. national security law is set to expire. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has many moving parts, but the gist is that it allows the government to collect the communications of foreigners who are abroad, to gain foreign intelligence information, including when those people communicate with Americans inside the United States. And it can do that without a warrant. 

In practice, this means that intelligence agencies can order email services, like Google and Yahoo, to hand over copies of the messages of targeted foreigners to intercept the phone calls, texts, and internet communications to or from a foreign target.

In the past, reauthorization by Congress was pretty much routine, and some new modifications and procedural safeguards have been added over the years. But this year could be different. A series of recent government reports and court opinions have shown extensive use of Section 702 as a domestic surveillance tool by the FBI. There have been numerous incidents of FBI agents pushing, and sometimes breaking, legal limits on accessing the data of Americans that is “incidentally” collected as part of a Section 702 search. Politics are also at play. Some members of Congress, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, have said they oppose reauthorization. 

To understand how the Biden administration is thinking about the Section 702 reauthorization, Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman sat down with Chris Fonzone and Josh Geltzer. Chris is the General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Josh is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor at the National Security Council. 

Show Notes:

• Chris Fonzone
• Josh Geltzer
• Just Security’s FISA Section 702 coverage
• 36:55 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
•  Music: “Eyes Closed” by Tobias Voigt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/tobias-voigt/eyes-closed (License code: XTRHPYM1ELYU8SVA) 

This week a U.S. public health measure known as Title 42 came to an end. The U.S. is supposed to allow people fleeing persecution to seek asylum. But Title 42 allowed the Department of Homeland Security to turn away asylum-seekers if detention centers lacked the room to hold them during the asylum vetting process. The policy made it difficult for migrants to even apply for asylum in the first place. They would often be released back into Mexico. But now, the old rules are back in place, and thousands of asylum seekers who have been stuck in limbo are poised to seek asylum again.

The Biden administration is also rolling out a new set of policies designed to address asylum claims before migrants physically reach the U.S. border. It’s created a mobile app which people can use to schedule an appointment with immigration officials and the State Department is working on plans to open regional processing centers throughout the Western hemisphere.  

The new measures could upend a simple idea at the heart of a complex immigration system: that people fleeing violence and persecution have the chance to find refuge in the United States. That change has massive implications for those who live in the U.S. and those trying to reach it.  

To help us understand the end of Title 42 and what comes next we have Adam Cox, Michelle Hackman, and Cristina Rodriguez. Michelle is a reporter who covers immigration at the Wall Street Journal. Adam and Cristina are law professors at NYU and Yale respectively. They wrote a book called “The President and Immigration Law.”  

Show Notes: 

• Adam Cox (@adambcox) 
• Michelle Hackman (@MHackman)
• Cristina Rodríguez (@cmrodriguez95)
• Adam and Cristina’s Just Security article analyzing the end of Title 42
• Just Security’s asylum coverage
• Michelle’s Wall Street Journal reporting  
• 32:18 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

On May 4, 2023, a jury in Washington, D.C. found four Proud Boys leaders, including former Chairman Enrique Tarrio, guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

The Proud Boys were the “tip of the spear” in planning and carrying out the January 6th attack. They tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. To help us understand what the verdict means, what’s missing, and what comes next, we have Tom Joscelyn and Mary McCord. 

Tom was a senior staff member on the House January 6th Committee and a lead drafter of its final report. He is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. Mary is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. She previously held senior national security roles at the Justice Department. Mary is a member of Just Security’s Editorial Board.  

Show Notes:  

• Tom Joscelyn (@thomasjoscelyn) 
• Mary B. McCord
• Tom’s Just Security article analyzing the conduct of some January 6th defendants 
• Mary and Jacob Glick’s Just Security article on anti-democracy schemes and paramilitary violence and Mary’s articleanalyzing seditious conspiracy charges 
• Just Security’s January 6 Clearinghouse
• January 6th Committee final report
• 33:20 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

As fighting in Sudan enters its third week, rival generals have turned the country’s capital, Khartoum, into a warzone. Mohamed Hamdan, better known as Hemedti, and his paramilitary Rapid Support Forces are fighting with Abdel Fatah al-Burhan, who leads the Sudanese Armed Forces. 

For years, Burhan and Hemedti have wrestled for power and control of Sudan. But until now, they’ve been on the same side. In 2019, they teamed up to remove the country’s long-time President Omar al-Bashir from power. And in 2021, they toppled the civilian government for military rule. The latest fighting is a clash between two men, but it’s also the latest chapter in Sudan’s long fight for freedom. 

To help us understand the conflict, what it means for the people of Sudan, and how it will impact the region, we have Quscondy Abdulshafi, Suliman Baldo, and Rebecca Hamilton. Quscondy is a Senior Regional Advisor at the nonprofit organization Freedom House. He has over a decade of experience working on human rights and peacebuilding in Sudan and East Africa. Suliman is the Executive Director of the Sudan Transparency and Policy Tracker, an organization that develops investigation and analysis of corruption in Sudan, led by Sudanese voices. Rebecca is a law professor at American University. But before that, she covered Sudan as a reporter for the Washington Post. Rebecca is also a member of Just Security’s Editorial Board. 

Show Notes: 

• Quscondy Abdulshafi (@Qabdulshafi)
• Suliman Baldo
• Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton)
• Sudan Transparency and Policy Tracker
• Suliman’s Just Security article on how the international community can respond to the conflict
• Just Security’s Sudan coverage
• 32:35 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The Supreme Court is back in the news and it's for all the wrong reasons. ProPublica reports that Justice Clarence Thomas has vacationed on private jets and superyachts all paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow. But Thomas didn’t disclose those trips. And his actions are just the Court’s latest ethics scandal. Last summer someone leaked the decision in Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade. And the New York Times reports that the Supreme Court Historical Society – which is technically a charity – has raised over $23 million in the last two decades from private donors. The Society often hosts events where those private donors can meet and mingle with the Justices behind closed doors.

That level of access to the Justices matters because each year the Court decides cases that impact everything from reproductive rights to gun control and the environment. The appearance that some people can buy influence on the court undermines the idea that everyone has an equal opportunity to have their case heard and fairly decided. In theory, there would be ethics laws in place to prevent a sitting Justice from accepting secret swanky vacations on superyachts and Adirondack hideaways. But do those laws really exist? 

To help us understand judicial ethics and what can be done to keep the Justices accountable, we have Caroline Fredrickson and Alan Neff.

Caroline is a Visiting Professor at Georgetown Law and a Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. Alan recently co-edited Rule of Law this week for the American Constitution Society and is a former lawyer for the City of Chicago. They are both experts on judicial ethics and the judicial system.

Show Notes: 

• Caroline Fredrickson (@crfredrickson) 
• Alan Neff (@AlanNeff)
• Caroline and Alan’s Just Security article on Supreme Court ethics  
• 3:25 ProPublica’s reporting on Justice Thomas’ relationship with Harlan Crow 
• 18:35 NYT article on the Supreme Court Historical Society (The Daily episode here) 
• 23:25 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “The Rose Jaguar” by Aaron Paul Low from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/aaron-paul-low/the-rose-jaguar (License code: IKEHLJFJSB7OEKVS)

Civilians in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are living in a nightmare. In the past year, the Rwandan-backed March 23 Movement – or M23 for short – has raped and killed dozens of civilians in the DRC’s North-Kivu province.

And this isn’t the first time. A decade ago this same group operated in the same part of the Congo, with funding and some military support from Rwanda. 

But back then, in 2013, the Obama administration used diplomacy and legal tools, like sanctions to pressure Rwanda to stop its support of M23. The group collapsed without that Rwandan backing. And many analysts thought it was gone for good. Until now. Rwanda has restarted its support of M23 and the group is clashing with the Congolese military, attacking civilians along the way.

Only this time, the US response has been more talk and less action. The Biden administration has warned Rwanda to withdraw support from M23, but it hasn’t used the same diplomatic and legal tools that worked a decade ago. 

To explain the conflict in DRC, and what the United States can do to pressure Rwanda to withdraw, we have Daniel Levine-Spound and Ari Tolany. Daniel is a human rights lawyer and researcher who specializes in the DRC and South Sudan. Ari is the Program Manager for the U.S. Program at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), a nonprofit organization which works to prevent civilian harm.  

Show Notes: 

• Daniel Levine-Spound (@dlspound) 
• Ari Tolany
• Daniel and Ari’s Just Security article on the M23 conflict and the U.S. response 
• Just Security’s DRC coverage
• Just Security’s Rwanda coverage
• 23:45 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Caravan” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/caravan (License code: QVHYMGIQGD5TGMEP)

Russian authorities recently detained Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich. They accused Gershkovich of being a spy and have held him on espionage charges since March 29. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that he believes Gershkovich is being wrongfully detained.

Evan’s arrest is Russia’s latest attempt to intimidate foreign correspondents reporting in the country. Those constant threats, and now the very real risk of arrest, are common tactics. They make it easier for the Russian government to spread propaganda to its citizens and harder for the rest of the world to understand what’s happening inside Russia. The Kremlin’s actions make it nearly impossible to hear from the Russian people directly.

To help us understand Evan’s case and Russia’s control over the foreign press, we have Gulnoza Said and Oystein Bogen. Gulnoza is the Europe and Central Asia program coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. Oystein is the D.C. Bureau Chief and Lead Correspondent for the Norwegian network TV 2. He spent years reporting from inside Russia and was detained six times while covering the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014. 

Show Notes: 

• Øystein Bogen (@oysteinbogen)
• Gulnoza Said (@gulnozas)
• 8:34 The Wall Street Journal’s reporting on conditions inside Lefortovo prison 
• 18:15 The Committee to Protect Journalists’ research on attacks on reporters in Russia 
• 32:50 Evan Gershkovich’s Wall Street Journal reporting and how to support his case
• 33:10 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “The Shadow Collectors Daughter” by “Night Drift” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/night-drift/the-shadow-collectors-daughter (License code: LRY4QBATMUIF3UKU)

On Thursday, March 30, a New York grand jury voted to indict former President Donald Trump over hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. While the charges remain secret, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will likely argue that Trump falsified business records and that the hush money payments amounted to an illegal contribution to his presidential campaign. The alleged indictment raises important questions about efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election and the rule of law. 

To unpack the developments, we have Karen Friedman Agnifilo. Karen has seen these types of cases up close as the former Manhattan Chief Assistant District Attorney. While there, she helped oversee the office’s 500 lawyers, 700 staff, and nearly 80,000 cases each year. 

Show Notes:  

• Karen F. Agnifilo (@KFAlegal)
• Just Security’s Chronology in Trump-Cohen Hush Money Investigation
• Just Security’s Survey of Past New York Felony Prosecutions for Falsifying Business Records
• Just security’s Survey of Past Criminal Prosecutions for Covert Payments to Benefit a Political Campaign
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

Last week in a Boston courtroom, a jury found the mayor of a small town in southwest Haiti liable of killing one man and torturing and trying to kill two others. The plaintiffs – David Boniface, Nissandère Martyr, and Juders Ysemé – spent a decade trying to hold Jean Morose Viliena accountable. They filed criminal cases in Haiti and even asked the United Nations for help. But nothing worked. Until now. 

The determined victims and their creative lawyers used a U.S. human rights law, the Torture Victims Protection Act, to finally find justice. The case provides a blueprint for victims to hold abusers accountable when every other option has failed.  

Joining us to understand this case are two of the lawyers who made it happen. Daniel McLaughlin and Ela Matthews are attorneys at the Center for Justice & Accountability, a nonprofit organization that uses the law to fight human rights abuses. 

Show Notes: 

• Ela Matthews (@elamatthews01)
• Daniel McLaughlin (@DMcLaughlinSF)
• Center for Justice & Accountability’s press release on the trial 
• U.S. Department of Justice’s press release on Viliena’s arrest for immigration fraud 
• Just Security’s Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) archive
• 8:45 Editor’s Note: Viliena was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice but arrested by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
• 22:00 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Big Dreams” by Simon Folwar from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/big-dreams (License code: RR993UDZVLULFLTG)

On Friday, March 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court announced that it had issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Commissioner for Children’s Rights. 

The Court said it had “reasonable grounds to believe” that Putin was responsible for unlawfully transferring and unlawfully deporting children from occupied Ukrainian territory into Russia. The arrest warrants are a major legal and diplomatic development in Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine. 

To discuss what the arrest warrants mean, we have Rebecca Hamilton, a law professor at American University and a member of Just Security’s Editorial Board. She has seen these issues firsthand as a former prosecutor at the Court.  

Show Notes: 

• Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton) 
• Rebecca’s Just Security article analyzing the Putin arrest warrant
• The International Criminal Court’s press release announcing the arrest warrants
• Yale University Humanitarian Research Lab and U.S. State Department study on the deportation of Ukrainian children 
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Two years after the January 6th attack, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers – two of the groups that stormed the Capitol and tried to overturn an election – are on a mission. This time, their goal is more subtle but just as sinister. Although individual Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are on trial for conspiracy and a heap of other crimes, the federal government has been slow to call the groups extremists. In courtrooms, on Twitter, and in media reports the groups are trying to clean up their image, and people are buying it. 

Today we’re going to explore how the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers use propaganda – calling themselves a “drinking club,” “patriots,” and “constitutionalists” – to control their own narrative and hide their violent, extremist views. Calling out these lies, and understanding how they work, is key to holding the groups accountable for the January 6th attack and exposing their continued messages of hate. 

Joining us are Meghan Conroy and Jon Lewis. Meghan is a Fellow with the Digital Forensic Research Lab and a former Investigator with the January 6th Committee, where she focused on the role of social media in the Capitol attack. Jon is a Fellow at the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, where he studies domestic and homegrown extremism. They wrote a recent Just Security piece analyzing the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers propaganda efforts and why they’ve been successful so far.  

Show Notes:  

• Meghan Conroy (@meghaneconroy)
• Jon Lewis (@Jon_Lewis27)
• Meghan and Jon’s Just Security article on the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers’ propaganda efforts 
• 24:25 Mary McCord’s Q&A “What Everyone Needs to Know About Prosecuting Domestic Terrorism” 
• 29:10 Brian Hughes and Cynthia Miller Idriss’ Lawfare article on the evolving landscape of domestic extremism and “mobilizing concepts”
• 30:05 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Desert Soul” by Tobias Voight from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/tobias-voigt/desert-soul (License code: RWJXGHZMZEKXIDGT)

Last month, a mysterious object appeared in the sky over Alaska, Idaho, and Montana. U.S. officials determined it was a “spy balloon” sent by China to gather intelligence. Chinese officials insisted the balloon was just gathering information on weather patterns. But the incident caused a diplomatic snafu. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Chinese actions violated U.S. sovereignty – the idea that a country’s land, air, and waters belong to it – and broke international law. That’s a big deal because international law tells countries how to behave, sort of like how traffic lights and speed signs tell drivers when to turn and how fast to go. 

But what does international law actually say about spying? To answer that question, we have Asaf Lubin. Asaf is a law professor at Indiana University and an expert on international law and espionage. 

Show Notes: 

• Asaf Lubin (@AsafLubin) 
• The “spy balloon’s path and timeline of the U.S. and Chinese responses 
• 6:40 Asaf’s article “The Liberty to Spy” 
• 19:35 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)
• Music: “Crafty Crime” by Jonny Boyle from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/jonny-boyle/crafty-crime (License code: VAPNGQCYJOSVCEG4) 

Since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine a year ago, we’ve seen some surprising military, diplomatic, and legal developments in the war. Ukrainian forces have proven remarkably strong, and the Ukrainian people have demonstrated utter determination against a Russian leadership and military that have drastically underperformed. Meanwhile, in Washington, the U.S. has developed its own response to Russia’s illegal invasion, which includes assembling an alliance to support Ukraine and providing billions in humanitarian aid and weapons, issuing massive sanctions against Russian banks and individuals, and passing new laws to prosecute those who commit grave crimes in Ukraine through U.S. courts. 

For an expert view of how the U.S. has responded to the conflict and what comes next, Just Security and the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law have re-assembled a stellar panel. These legal and diplomatic all-stars first put their heads together a year ago during an NYU panel that happened to fall on the day of the invasion. Dan Baer is the Acting Director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Europe Program and the former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Tess Bridgeman is Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, a Senior Fellow & Visiting Scholar at the Reiss Center on Law and Security, and a former Deputy Legal Advisor at the National Security Council. And Rose Gottemoeller is a Lecturer at Stanford University and the former Deputy Secretary General of NATO. 

Co-hosting this special episode are Just Security Fellow Paras Shah and Senior Washington Editor Viola Gienger. 

Show Notes: 

• Dan Baer (@danbbaer)
• Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter) 
• Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)
• Rose Gottemoeller (@Gottemoeller)
• Paras Shah (@pshah518)
• Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law (@RCLS_NYU)
• Just Security's Russia-Ukraine War archive
• Reiss Center’s What You Need to Know: Unpacking the Law in Russia’s War Against Ukraine  
• Reiss Center and Just Security's February 2022 event The Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Navigating Law, Diplomacy, and Force
• 50:50 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

One of a President’s most important jobs is appointing federal judges. And it’s not just Supreme Court Justices that matter. Across the country, hundreds of federal judges decide cases that impact everything from environmental regulations to gun control to reproductive rights. 

But an obscure process called the “blue slip,” allows a single Senator to stop a judicial nomination in its tracks. To explain the blue slip, we have Caroline Fredrickson and Alan Neff. They recently wrote an open letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) urging him to eliminate the blue slip for good. 

Caroline is a Visiting Professor at Georgetown Law and a Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. Alan recently served as co-editor of Rule of Law This Week for the American Constitution Society and is a former Senior Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago. 

Show Notes 

• Caroline Fredrickson (@crfredrickson) 
• Alan Neff (@AlanNeff)
• Caroline and Alan’s open letter to Sen. Durbin 
• New York Times Editorial Board op-ed advocating for removal of the blue slip process 
• 4:15 Russell Wheeler’s analysis of President Biden’s judicial nominees 
• 13:40 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

Two years ago, Myanmar’s military seized power in a coup. It was a major setback for the country, which had begun to slowly move toward democracy and free elections after decades of military rule. For other countries and organizations like the United Nations – the coup raised some big, and still open, questions about whether and how to interact with the military junta, particularly amid efforts to hold Myanmar’s leaders accountable for grave crimes, including acts of genocide, against the Rohingya and other ethnic groups.

The junta has announced that it plans to hold “elections” in August, but most experts believe that free and fair elections are impossible under current conditions, and that the elections are merely an effort by the military to deepen its control over the country. 

On the two-year anniversary of the coup, we speak with Akila Radhakrishnan and Angela Mudukuti from the Global Justice Center, a nonprofit organization that advances gender equity and human rights. Global Justice Center has worked closely with organizations in Myanmar since 2005. Akila is Global Justice Center’s President and an expert on the role that gender plays in genocide. Angela Mudukuti, is a Zimbabwean lawyer and the Senior Legal Adviser at the Global Justice Center. She has worked for a number of organizations including the International Criminal Court (ICC) and her experience includes working on universal jurisdiction and precedent-setting cases before South African courts including seeking the arrest of the former president of Sudan during his visit to South Africa.

Show Notes 

• Akila Radhakrishnan (@akilaGJC)
• Angela Mudukuti (@AngelaMudukuti)
• 14:25 Global Justice Center and BROUK’s recommendations to the Argentinian judiciary in a case brought against Myanmar military leaders for the genocide of the Rohingya
• 21:15 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• 21:45 Just Security’s Beyond the Myanmar Coup series
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

The democracy beat is all the rage in news coverage. But the press needs to do more than follow current events. As the “fourth estate,” independent news works in a system of checks and balances. At its best, the press can hold government accountable to the people. And so, the way it covers democracy and dictatorships matters. That reporting informs the way we vote and how all of us, as people, understand the world.

To discuss how the press can better report on diverse communities and cooperate globally we have Erin Carroll and Rebecca Hamilton. Erin and Rebecca are both journalists turned law professors. Erin teaches classes on technology and the press, as well as legal research and writing at Georgetown Law. Rebecca teaches criminal law, national security, and international law at American University. She’s also a member of Just Security’s Editorial Board.

Show Notes: 

• Erin Carroll (@erinccarroll13) 
• Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton) 
• 4:45 Caitlin Dickerson’s Atlantic article, “An American Catastrophe” 
• 8:00 Rebecca’s Just Security articles on seeing ourselves from the outside and Facebook’s removing news in Australia
• 9:04 Erin’s Just Security article on democracy beats
• 12:20 Committee to Project Journalists report on media workers killed in 2022 
•  22:15 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

As Russia’s war against Ukraine rages on and evidence of thousands of war crimes continues to mount, countries around the world have looked for ways to hold Russian generals and troops accountable. 

On January 5, 2023, President Biden signed the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act, closing a major loophole that has prevented the U.S. from investigating and prosecuting alleged war criminals when they enter the country. 

To break down the new law, and how it could hold war criminals accountable, we have Elise Baker. Elise is a lawyer at the Atlantic Council, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. She is an expert on accountability for atrocity crimes and human rights violations. 

Show Notes:  

• Elise Baker (@elise__baker) 
• Elise’s Just Security article analyzing the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act 
• 14:37 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

This year, the Supreme Court may decide Students for Fair Admissions v. The President and Fellows of Harvard College, a case that could prevent schools from considering a student’s race in the admissions process. It has major implications for diversity in the U.S. military and national security more generally. 

To discuss the military’s efforts to increase diversity and breakdown what the case might mean for U.S. national security we have Bishop Garrison and Heidi Urben. 

Bishop recently served as a Senior Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense with a focus on human capital and diversity, equity, and inclusion issues. He is a West Point graduate and U.S. Army veteran where he served in Iraq and earned several awards, including two Bronze Stars. Heidi is a Professor of the Practice at Georgetown University's Security Studies Program and a retired U.S. Army colonel. She teaches, researches, and writes about civil-military relations, military and defense policy, and national security.

Show Notes: 

• Bishop Garrison (@BishopGarrison) 
• Heidi Urben (@HeidiAUrben) 
• Students for Fair Admissions v. The President and Fellows of Harvard College oral argument
• 22:18 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

It’s been two years since the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. Since then, we’ve come to understand a lot about the groups and individuals who planned and carried out the attack, with much of that information coming from the House January 6th Committee, which issued its final report last month. 

But even after the Committee’s report, there is unfinished business that remains, like how to continue holding those responsible for the attack accountable, and how to address the threat from paramilitary groups like those that attacked the Capitol that day. To discuss the paths forward we have Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann.

Mary is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. She previously held senior national security roles at the Justice Department and is a member of Just Security’s Editorial Board. Andrew is also a former federal prosecutor with decades of Justice Department and FBI experience, including a senior role on the team for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  

Show Notes: 

• Mary B. McCord
• Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_)
• January 6th Committee final report
• Mary and Jacob Glick’s Just Security article on anti-democracy schemes and paramilitary violence
• Just Security’s January 6 Clearinghouse
• 19:56 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

After nearly a year and a half of hearings and interviews the January 6th Committee is wrapping up its work. It held its final hearing on Monday, will issue its final report on Thursday, and it referred former President Donald Trump to the Justice Department for potentially violating four federal criminal laws, including inciting an insurrection. 

To unpack the Committee’s final hearing, and the criminal referrals, we have Ryan Goodman, Barbara McQuade, and Asha Rangappa. Ryan is Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Barbara is a Professor at the University of Michigan Law School, and she previously served as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. Asha is a Senior Lecturer at Yale’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and she’s also a former FBI Special Agent. Barbara and Asha are both members of Just Security’s Editorial Board. 

Show Notes: 

• Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) 
• Barbara McQuade (@BarbMcQuade)
• Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_)
• January 6th Committee website
• January 6th Committee final report executive summary
• Ryan’s Just Security article on how interference in the Committee’s investigation can enable the Special Counsel 
• Just Security’s January 6 Clearinghouse
• 10:02 Ryan Reilly and Ken Dilanian NBC News article on the January 6th Committee avoiding criticism in the report’s executive summary 
• 18:37 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

This week, Congress passed the FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, which President Biden is expected to sign into law. It’s a massive bill, thousands of pages long, that provides the Defense Department with an $858 billion dollar budget for next year. Buried in the law are some key reforms (or lack of reforms) for how the United States goes to war and how it responds when civilians are injured or killed. 

To discuss what the NDAA says about war powers and civilian protection, and where the bill is silent, we have Brian Finucane, Heather Brandon-Smith, and Annie Shiel. Brian is a Senior Advisor at Crisis Group and a member of the Just Security editorial board. For a decade, he was a lawyer with the State Department where he advised the federal government on counterterrorism and use of force. Heather is a Legislative Director at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a nonpartisan organization that lobbies to advance peace, justice, and protecting the environment. Annie is a Senior Advisor at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, CIVIC, which works to develop and implement solutions to prevent, mitigate, and respond to civilian harm. 

Show Notes: 

• Brian Finucane (@BCFinucane)
• Heather Brandon-Smith (@HBrandonSmith)         
• Annie Shiel (@annieshiel)
• Brian and Heather’s Just Security article on the FY 2023 NDAA 
• Just Security's series on the FY 2023 NDAA 
• Just Security’s NDAA archive
• 6:28 Statement by U.S. General Frank McKenzie on Aug. 29, 2021 Kabul drone strike that killed 10 civilians 
• 6: 17 New York Times coverage of Aug. 29, 2021 Kabul drone strike that killed 10 civilians 
• 6:50 New York Times coverage of March 18, 2019 Baghuz, Syria, drone strike that killed nearly 80 civilians 
• 7:38 DOD’s Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMRAP)
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

On Dec. 6, Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock won a special runoff election in Georgia against Republican candidate Herschel Walker. Warnock’s victory gives Democrats a slim, but solid, majority of 51 to 49 in the Senate. The new majority allows Democrats to control everything from investigations and oversight to key legislation and committee placements. 

Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s announcement that she will register as a political Independent is unlikely to impact the power balance in the next Senate. The Democratic majority already includes two Independents who caucus with them, Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. 

To unpack the many implications of Warnock's win, we had Andy Wright, a member of Just Security's Editorial Board and partner at the law firm K&L Gates in Washington, D.C. Andy is an expert on Congressional oversight and previously served in senior legal roles at the White House and on Congressional committees. 

Show Notes: 

• Andy Wright (@AndyMcCanse) 
• 1:10 Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s interview announcing she will register as an Independent 
• 12:30 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

Every year, nations from around the world gather for a meeting on climate change. It's called the Conference of State Parties, or COP, and this year it took place in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. To speak about the big trends of COP 27 and the major takeaways for what happens next, we have Mark Nevitt, a professor at Emory Law School and an expert on climate change and national security.

Show Notes: 

• Mark Nevitt (@MarkNevitt) 
• 5:17 Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 23, 2022 
• 8:13 Seychelles President Wavel Ramkalawan’s remarks at COP 27 on Nov. 8, 2022
• 16:10 NYU’s American Journalism Online Program
• 16:40 Mark’s Just Security article previewing COP 27 
• Just Security’s COP 27 tracker with notable moments and key themes  
• Lisa Benjamin’s (@DrLisaBenjamin) Just Security article analyzing the future of loss and damage after COP 27
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

It’s been over three months since the FBI searched Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. We know that Trump kept classified documents after he left office. But since the search, we haven’t heard much information about what exactly the Justice Department plans to do about it. That’s pretty common. After all, investigations take time. Whatever the Justice Department’s timeline is, the investigation is likely to end in a document called a Prosecution Memorandum. It’s what prosecutors use when they evaluate whether to charge a person with a crime. And for Trump, that type of memo will be especially confidential and sensitive. It’s likely to present all the evidence, like what the FBI learned from searching Mar-a-Lago, consider what federal laws Trump might have broken, and analyze Trump’s best defenses.

Just Security’s “Model Prosecution Memo” considers the publicly available information from court documents and news reports. It also compares Trump’s alleged conduct to the entire universe of cases that DOJ has prosecuted under the same criminal laws. The memo concludes that Trump’s conduct exceeds the gravity of other former officials who the Justice Department has charged for the mishandling of classified documents. 

To discuss the Model Prosecution Memo we have Andrew Weissmann, Joyce Vance, and Ryan Goodman, who were among the memo’s authors. Andrew has served in many senior Justice Department roles, including on the core team for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Joyce served as the former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, and Ryan is Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief. 

Show Notes: 

•  Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_) 
•  Joyce Vance (@JoyceWhiteVance) 
• Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) 
• Just Security Model Prosecution Memo
• Just Security tracker Evidence of Trump’s Knowledge and Involvement in Retaining Mar-a-Lago Documents
• NYU’s American Journalism Online Program (@nyu_ajo)
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

The January 6th Committee is wrapping up its work, which has provided a detailed account of the individuals and groups involved in the attack. Thanks to the Committee, we know that law enforcement agencies like the FBI had intelligence about the attack ahead of time. What we don’t know is how they used that information or why they failed to stop the attack. 

Joining on this episode to discuss what the FBI knew, the culture inside the Bureau, and how to address reforms, are Andrew McCabe and Asha Rangappa. Andrew served as the FBI’s Deputy Director and Acting Director during the Obama and Trump administrations, and Asha is a former FBI special agent. 

Show Notes:  

• Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) 
• Andrew McCabe
• Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) 
• Asha’s Just Security article “The Missing Review of FBI’s January 6 Intelligence and Law Enforcement Failures”
• January 6th Committee website
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

This year, the war in Ukraine has dominated news headlines and been on everyone’s mind. At the heart of it is Russian President Vladimir Putin, who began his career as a spy with the KGB. To understand a former spy, you need a former spy. Doug London is fluent in Russian and spent nearly 40 years with the CIA, as an operations officer and station chief in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. On this episode, he discusses Putin’s background, mindset, and strategies for the United States and others to address Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. 

Show Notes: 

• Douglas London (@douglaslondon5)
• 5:25 New York Times coverage of Russian leadership considering the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine 
• Doug’s book The Recruiter: Spying and the Lost Art of American Intelligence
• Doug’s Just Security article analyzing Putin’s mindset 
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)

New York Times national security correspondent Charlie Savage reported that the Biden administration has issued a still-classified policy on some types of counterterrorism operations, such as drone strikes and commando raids. That policy, the Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM), follows earlier guidance from the Obama and Trump administrations. 

For reactions to the PPM, Just Security has a written mini-series from our lineup of expert authors. On this week’s episode, Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway and New America International Security Program Fellow Luke Hartig discuss the Biden plan and what it all means for U.S. counterterrorism efforts and forever war. 

Show Notes:

• Oona A. Hathaway (@oonahathaway)  
• Luke Hartig (@LukeHartig)
• Just Security mini-series on President Biden’s Presidential Policy Memo (PPM)
• 0:23 Charlie Savage’s NYT article on the PPM
• 2:20 President Obama’s Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG)
• 3:12 President Trump’s Principles, Standards, and Procedures (PSP) 
• 16:33  New York Times coverage of Aug. 29, 2021 Kabul drone strike that killed 10 civilians 
• 17:40 New York Times coverage of March 18, 2019 Baghuz drone strike that killed about 70 civilians 
• 18:20 Azmat Khan’s Pulitzer-winning reporting on U.S. drone strikes in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan 
• Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)