Inside Geneva: Are we throwing away international law?

Summary

Inside Geneva: Are We Throwing Away International Law?

Podcast: Inside Geneva
Host: Imogen Foulkes (SWI swissinfo.ch)
Date: December 9, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Inside Geneva tackles the troubling state of international law in 2025. Host Imogen Foulkes is joined by Professor Nico Krisch (International Law, Geneva Graduate Institute), Kazmira Jefford (Editor-in-Chief, Geneva Solutions), and regular analyst Daniel Warner to discuss whether the world is abandoning the systems and principles put in place after World War II. With references to current crises from Gaza to Ukraine and shifting global attitudes, the episode critically examines if international law still holds weight—or if it's being cast aside in favor of power politics, populism, and national interest.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Defining International Law Today

• Nico Krisch: International law comprises obligations states have towards each other, but also aspires to create a law-based global society, not just a technical framework. (04:05–04:44)
• Kazmira Jefford: International law is more than diplomatic language—it’s the “safety net” people count on when their governments fail. (04:46–05:31)
• Daniel Warner: Reiterates Lon Fuller's idea that law's purpose is “unfolding,” aiming for justice but under constant change. (06:35–07:11)

"International law is the barrier between us and our own barbarism." – Imogen Foulkes (quoting an ICRC colleague, 05:31)

2. Historical Context: From Nuremberg to the '90s Hope

• Emphasis on the optimism that followed WWII: the Nuremberg Trials were about justice and establishing rules to prevent recurrence.
• The Genocide Convention and Geneva Conventions are products of this era, but progress stalled during the Cold War, and resurgence only came in the 1990s. (07:43–09:11)

"There was a consensus...to create a body that would not simply execute the leaders of the defeated country, but instead put them on trial to make visible to the world what crimes they had actually committed." – Nico Krisch (08:04)

3. 2025: Are We Discarding International Law?

• Recent events (arrest warrants for Russian and Israeli leaders) highlight tensions: laws are in place, but enforcement is lacking.
• Perception that certain leaders, indicted for crimes, continue to operate globally with few consequences. (10:18–11:11)
• The episode’s core question: "2025—the year we threw away international law?" (02:55)

"Show me the results. Show me when Putin comes to Alaska. Show me when Netanyahu comes to the White House." – Daniel Warner (18:54)

4. Public Engagement and Shifting Attitudes

• Younger generations might not label norms as “international law,” but care about injustice is present.
• Examples include youth-driven campaigns around climate justice and participation in ICJ actions (e.g., Vanuatu’s climate case). (12:32–13:55)

“There are these other sets of rules that can help right wrongs and bring about some form of justice as well.” – Kazmira Jefford (04:46)

5. The Erosion of Absolutes and Increased Violations

• Former firm prohibitions (like the Landmine Convention, absolute bans on torture) are being questioned or rationalized away, sometimes even by younger people.
• Recent surveys show a growing willingness to make exceptions under pressure (e.g., torture to prevent attacks). (14:36–16:24)
• Warner points out that the problem is not the existence of violations, but “how much violation can there be before the treaty or the norm becomes invalid?” (15:40)

6. Double Standards & Geopolitical Realignments

• Western states, especially the US, are accused of hypocrisy, selectively upholding international law.
• Europe appears “squashed” and hesitant, especially around Israel/Gaza and relations with the US and Russia. (23:17–24:01)
• The Global South, in forums like the UN, criticizes the West for double standards, referencing the invasion of Ukraine versus Gaza responses. (25:13–25:34)

“It is the west now that is somewhat more blatantly often ignoring international law.” – Nico Krisch (24:02)

7. The US Role and the Future of Multilateralism

• The US, historically the backbone of multilateral legal frameworks, is increasingly absent or oppositional. Its attitude has shifted from seeking legal justifications for controversial acts to not caring about them at all. (28:22–30:12)
• Other countries must now decide whether to proceed without the US or wait for it to re-engage. Some treaties, such as the Landmine Convention, proceeded without US leadership. (28:22–30:01)

“Now they (US leaders) don't even ask [the legal advisor]. And that's a fundamental change.” – Daniel Warner (30:12)

8. Question of Enforcement and Results

• Despite legal advancements and public attention (such as to the South Africa-Israel ICJ case), enforcement remains weak.
• Sanctions are now being placed even on ICC judges by the US, making the environment for international law practitioners very precarious. (19:23–20:03)

9. New Populism, Private Power, and “Digital Conquistadors”

• Reference to Giuliano Da’s book The Hour of the Predator: warns of a "new populist class of political predators and digital conquistadors" who see little need for independent judiciaries or international law. (31:05–32:08)
• Concerns about powerful interests (business, tech giants, political classes) sidelining universal laws.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the erosion of norms:
  “How much violation can there be before the treaty or the norm becomes invalid? And I think we're seeing a level of violation that is extraordinary.” – Daniel Warner (15:40)

• On public awareness:
  "The number of people that tuned into the reading out of the provisional measures decision of the International Court of Justice...It was on the first page news all over the world. And when have you seen that?" – Nico Krisch (17:24)

• On US double standards:
  “Now we simply cannot count on the US. If we are in negotiations with them, we know that they're not going to sign this treaty.” – Nico Krisch (28:22)

• On future prospects:
  "The way that certain leaders today are acting is not sustainable. Perhaps for a certain time we can do away with cherry picking bits of treaties and laws that they like best. But at some point there's going to be a reaction to that." – Kazmira Jefford (33:03)

• On optimism and the need for cooperation:
  "We're living in a world that's more and more interdependent...That interdependence will lead us out of the problems we have today to something more positive." – Daniel Warner (32:08)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Defining international law – initial roundtable: 04:05–06:35
• Nuremberg & post-WWII optimism: 07:27–09:11
• Discussion on enforcement and double standards: 10:18–11:11; 23:17–25:13
• Public, youth, and climate engagement with international law: 12:32–13:55
• Rise of violations and shifting thresholds: 14:36–16:24
• The role (and absence) of US leadership: 28:22–30:12
• Populism and private power versus international law: 31:05–32:08
• Concluding thoughts on cooperation and hope: 32:08–35:43

---

Conclusion & Tone

The conversation is candid and at times sobering, with a level of frustration over the erosion of standards and the powerlessness of international institutions. However, all participants grasp for optimism: interdependence among nations and the energy from new generations are cited as possible foundations for rebuilding respect for international law. The tone is earnest yet pragmatic, blending historic insight with a critical look at contemporary realities.

“We got these laws because we made some awful, awful, awful mistakes and committed some terrible crimes. And what I really hope is that we don't have to reinvent all this stuff because we made the same mistakes again.” – Imogen Foulkes (35:43)

---

Listeners' takeaway: International law is under intense pressure from political disregard, double standards, and new forms of power. Yet, fundamental principles and an enduring human desire for justice persist. The need for global cooperation, especially as new crises like climate change loom, may force a reassessment—or reinvigoration—of the world’s commitment to law over force.

Transcript

[A]

Are you Swiss and planning to move abroad? Or maybe you've already taken the leap? Swiss Info has a new podcast just for you. It's coming out on November 25th. It's called Ade Merci Schweez. Or maybe that should be Adieu Merci la Suisse. It's available in Swiss, German and French. It covers everything you need to know about setting up your new life abroad. We speak to Swiss around the world who've already made the move and we ask experts to share their experiences. You'll find adamercy Schweets wherever you get your podcasts or in our SW app.

This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host Imogen folks, and this is a production from SwissInfo, the international post public media company of Switzerland.

In today's program, international law is like.

[B]

The ultimate rule book for countries. Think of it as the world's referee. When your government is not there to uphold your rights, it's that safety net to think that there's something else out there. There are these other sets of rules that can help right wrongs and bring about some form of justice as well.

[C]

There's a different expectation, different hope around international law. I think today. We have many rules today that are much more ambitious than they used to be.

[A]

Tonight, the International Criminal Court issuing arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister, his former.

[D]

Defense minister, charging them with crimes against humanity.

[A]

The International Criminal Court has issued an.

[B]

Arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

[A]

Because of his alleged involvement in abductions of children from Ukraine.

[D]

You can give me all the justices saying X about Gaza, about Netanyahu. You can give me all the decision of the International Criminal Court. Show me the results. Show me when Putin comes to Alaska. Show me when Netanyahu comes to the White House.

[A]

We got these laws because we made some awful mistakes and committed some terrible crimes. And what I really hope is that we don't have to reinvent all this stuff because we made the same mistakes again.

[C]

I think if somebody today proposed to create an International Criminal Court, they would be laughed at. It's not the diplomatic context in which you can undertake such ventures.

[D]

How much violation can there be before the treaty or the norm becomes invalid? And I think we're seeing a level of violation that is extraordinary.

[B]

The way that certain leaders today are acting is not sustainable. Perhaps for a certain time we can do away with cherry picking bits of treaties and laws that they like best. But at some point there's going to be a reaction to that.

[A]

Hello and welcome to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen folks, and today we're going to talk about international law. And before you switch off because you think it's maybe too dry, think again. International law has been in the news a lot lately, from Ukraine to Gaza to the coast of Venezuela. And so our topic Today is 2025, the year we threw away international law. To discuss this, we have here in the studio Nico Karish, professor of International law at Geneva's Graduate Institute, Kazmira Jeffert, Editor in chief of Geneva Solutions. That's a daily newsletter that is essential reading for any anyone working here in Geneva, in the un in humanitarian agencies, and our regular analyst Daniel Warner. Welcome to you all. I'm going to start off with a really basic question, but I think it's maybe a good idea to ask all of you what does international law actually mean to you? How would you define it? And Nico, since you were the professor, I'm going to come to you first.

[C]

Thanks, Imogen. On a very basic level, international law is the compound of obligations that states have vis a vis one another, right? That's the basic and formal definition, I would say. But of course that doesn't tell us very much and probably it is more in a more ambitious formulation. It would be in a sense the rules the international community lives by, which kind of takes us from the former territory to more an aspirational idea that somehow international law also signifies the idea of a law based international society which is not something we can so easily take for granted.

[A]

Kez Muira, what about you?

[B]

Well, I'll give a slightly less perhaps academic definition as a journalist. For me, I mean, I think international law really is in the auspices of the palace in Geneva. It can be quite an aloof term and obscure, pure and kind of confined to erudite language that diplomats use here to negotiate treaties. But I think really more than that, it's a living, breathing thing that people count on. When your government is not there to uphold your rights, it's that safety net, that stop gap to think that there's something else out there. There are these other sets of rules that can help right wrongs and bring about some form of justice as well. And, and that's very important. I think there's a lot of very.

[A]

Important people out there, something that protects us. Mine is very basic anyway, two things. One, from quite a long time ago, my late mother in law, her brother went missing over Germany. He was an RAF navigator. Very sadly, three weeks before the armistice was signed. But his family knew they could contact the Red Cross and, and that if he was a prisoner. They would be able to send him things, and they knew that immediately. That was there as something in this terrible moment. Unfortunately, he was found quite quickly that he had died. And the other thing is somebody who worked for the Red Cross when I first started in Geneva, who had come back from the Middle east, and he said, international law is the barrier between us and our own barbarism. And that kind of struck me that there are just some things you shouldn't do in life, and unfortunately, we all still do them, but we have these laws. Danny, what about you?

[D]

Well, I mean, simply, it's a question of what states or any organization or any person can do and can't do. But I often come back to Lon Fuller's professor's statement that the law, international law, has an unfolding purpose. And the unfolding purpose is probably notions of justice. And it's unfolding in a sense. It's not static, it's not stable, but it's always changing according to what the situation is. And certainly today, as we'll discuss, the situation is changing radically.

[A]

One of the things I wanted to talk about, because things are very polarized and divisive today, especially on this topic, but it is 80 years since the end of the Second World War and eight years since the Nuremberg trials.

[D]

Attention. Tribunal judges from Britain, America, Russia and France assemble in Nuremberg's courthouse. Imagination sickens at the crimes laid upon the accused. Now stripped of the trappings of power, the world's writ has run to Nuremberg.

[A]

And justice waits now at that moment, Nico, you probably studied this. There was a consensus, wasn't there, that should be not just accountability for the crimes committed, but that there should be a body of law which would criminalize some of these things more than they had been up to then.

[C]

Yeah, there was clearly a consensus in the international community, which of course, did not really include the enemy states at the time, to create a body that would not simply execute the leaders of the defeated country, but instead put them on trial to make visible to the world what crimes they had actually committed. And the crime of aggression was, of course, among those. So that was a very decisive moment at the same time, of course, that gave birth to some broader laws. The Genocide Convention, of course, was part of that development. The Geneva Conventions, to an extent, too, that have some criminalizing elements to them. But it took quite a while after that actually kind of to come back to the project of international criminal law that would really single out individuals for crimes. And that's really something that we see much more than in the 1990s, happening right after the end of the Cold War, after the consensus to some extent had dissipated during the Cold War. And then there was a possibility of coming together again in more fortunate circumstances.

[A]

This was, I suppose, a moment of hope, wasn't it? 89 to maybe 99. What do we think? What's happened since then? What has got us to this point where we are seeing, to me, it feels like, anyway, egregious devaluing of international law.

[D]

I think, Imogen, there are better moments and there are down moments. I was thinking of the Geneva Conventions, the middle of the 19th century Libra code in the United States, dealing with the Civil War. And after that we have World War I and World War II. And today we're at a moment where people states are less and less respecting international law. Why that came about, politicians, political scientists may answer, but the question is, is this the end of international law? Because certainly everyone agrees that we should protect certain things, especially us. The question is, how much can we impose obligations and how much can we punish?

[A]

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip. We have breaking news out of the Hague.

[D]

In the Netherlands, the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant warrant for Russia's Vladimir Putin for his alleged involvement in the unlawful deportation of children from Russia's occupied areas of Ukraine.

[A]

For the ICC to succeed, it needs the support of governments because its powers are limited.

[B]

The power it has is for judges to take decisions.

[D]

There are certain people, I think of Netanyahu, I think of Putin, who are under indictments, and they seem to be welcomed around the world. Can that change? Will individuals be taken to be responsible? But I think the laws are there. The question is whether they're respected and what can be done about those who violate them.

[A]

I suppose if we look back over the years since 1945, we do know that it's not as if we got to the early 21st century and everybody abandoned stuff they'd been obeying for decades. That's not true. I mean, we had terrible wars in the 1960s. We had Vietnam, we had the use of chemical agents, we had the invasion of Afghanistan, we had the overthrow of a government in Chile. So it's not as if everybody was a saint. But, Kasimir, I want to come to you because there's one particular treaty, and I know you're working on it at the moment, which was hailed in the 1990s as a fantastic treaty and been celebrated ever since. And that's the Convention Against Landmines. Now I was crossing the Place des Nations last night, leaving my office past the broken chair, which is a monument to that convention. And there were two young guys, they'd come out of the UN behind me and one of them said to the other, do you know what that, why, why that chair has, has only three legs? And the other one said, I don't know, just some diplomatic stuff. So here's my question. Do you think since you're the youngest here, that the younger generation is too far away from the consciousness of why we drafted these international laws?

[B]

I think they might not call them international laws, they use different vocabulary. But I think that young people today are, and I wouldn't necessarily count myself as one of them since I'm a little bit older, but younger than us more.

I think people, I think you young people really do care. They don't call it international yule, but where all we have a sense of right and wrong grounded within us. I'd like to believe we still have that. And so they sense when something is just inherently wrong and intuitively wrong and are still prepared today to protest, to stand up against these wrongs. So it might not be in that language, but I think there is a sense of, of injustice. We see it in the fight for climate justice.

[A]

The UN's highest court has ruled that climate change is an urgent and existential threat. The ruling came in response to a case brought by the island state of Vanuatu. The court added that failing to protect the planet from the effects of climate change could be a violation of international law. Thousands of kilometers away from the Pacific Ocean.

A clear and unanimous decision with far reaching consequences for island peoples.

[B]

The International Court of Justice's opinion that was issued this summer, that was an opinion that came from a classroom in Vanuatu and some young students who decided, you know, what can international laws do for us, recognizing that climate change is a violation of our human rights. And you saw countries, I can't remember how many countries it was, but record number of countries who were, who spoke at that hearing, at those hearings at the end of last year and brought attention to that. So I think there are still people activating those buttons and finding creative ways to make those laws work for them at least. Maybe that's the young, the youth in me that still hopes.

[A]

I wonder though, and Danny and Nico, you tell me this as well. I do wonder whether there's quite an awareness though that international law is based on absolutes in some way. There is an absolute prohibition on torture or if you've signed up to the Landmine Convention, there is an absolute prohibition basically on you using the anti personnel landmines. And yet with the Landmine Convention, the argument, and we see countries withdrawing from it now is they're in the Baltics, they have borders with Russia, is Russia is going to use them against us, so we should be able to use them against them. A few years ago, the International Committee of the Red Cross did a survey on attitudes to torture and it was among younger people that they qualified the absolute prohibition. They said if we can get useful information that might prevent an attack, we can torture people. So I'm wondering, Nico, Danny, do we need more education? Kashmir as well, what do you think?

[D]

I'm not sure it's education. I think what's happened. Imogen, you want to see why we're in a different situation today. It's a question of threshold. When you have a treaty or a norm, there is a threshold that says you can't do this. Obviously certain people, states are going to violate it. How much violation can there be before the treaty or the norm becomes invalid? I think we're seeing a level of violation that is extraordinary and it's that level that has people saying this is disregarded. Why should we be interested? Look at the people who do that and look at how many people do that. That's something I think we haven't seen.

[A]

Nico, do you agree with that?

[C]

Yeah, I'd agree with that. But I think there's also something broader going on. We've seen surveys, right, about rise of anti liberal or illiberal attitudes and especially among younger men, I think more than women even. So there might be a broader shift in attitudes also that makes people turn towards softening some prohibitions. But I think there's also, there's maybe something more going on and that goes a bit to the contrast and why people are turning to say, the International Court of Justice now. There's a different expectation, different hope around international law I think today then there was maybe, I imagine in the 70s or 80s. We have many rules today that are much more ambitious than they used to be. The Landmines Convention is one of them. Right. People wouldn't have hoped in the 1970s to get this off the ground. It was something that could be done in the 1990s. So we have a set of ambitious rules. We have the International Criminal Court, things that also were unthinkable to an extent before.

[A]

Would they be thinkable now? They were thinkable in the 1990s.

[C]

I think if somebody today proposed to create an International Criminal Court, they would be laughed at. It's not the diplomatic context in which you can undertake such ventures. And there were kind of better circumstances at some time. So I think that's important to see that in a sense we have these ambitious laws. And to an extent, maybe kind of that's also because that's why we see more that law is broken. Just because there's more law out there that we can measure state conduct against. There might be one aspect, really. And I think international law is also more in people's minds, right? Sort of the number of people that tuned into the reading out of the provisional measures decision of the International Court of Justice in the South Africa Israel case on Gaza. Israel is being accused of committing genocide in the UN's top court. International Court of Justice on Friday ordered Israel to do everything in its power, power to prevent genocide in the territory. That was tremendous. It was in the first page news all over the world. And when have you seen that about the International Court of Justice? It has never been so prominent in public media. So I think kind of the sense, countervailing trends there, right? There's more violations probably and maybe more fundamental violations, especially of countries that you expected to abide by the laws to some extent. And at the same time, there's also more attention to that and more hope and expectations associated with the laws. And the two together, I think make for pretty explosive cocktail.

[D]

Nico, not to be the New York cynic, but that's what Imogen wants me to do. You can give me all the justices saying X about Gaza, about Netanyahu. You can give me all the decision of the International Criminal Court. Show me the results. Show me when Putin comes to Alaska. Show me when Netanyahu comes to the White House. Where are the results of the decisions being made that you claim the world was waiting to hear?

[A]

Well, instead, the judges are being sanctioned.

[D]

We start in the United States, where.

[C]

Donald Trump has denounced the International Criminal Court, accusing it of illegitimate and baseless actions against the US And Israel.

[B]

The International Criminal Court, once again the.

[A]

Target of the Trump administration. The U.S. state Department announced new sanctions on four ICC officials on Wednesday. I was reading a shocking account of one of these judges who can't have bank accounts. He can't even operate financially in Europe anymore because. And we're going to come on to that in a minute. The tech is controlled by American, American tech. O Garch, New word, everybody.

[B]

And on that, I think the ICC has its annual meetings this week where it's asking itself some of these fundamental existential questions of where it's future lies. Can it continue to operate next year if it's continued to be hit by sanctions and also if its warrants prove ineffective against countries that don't uphold them. So I think there's some big questions being asked at the moment on the future of the ICC and others. But I was going to add before, just a small point to say that also with at the same time the birth of all these treaties and talk of international law also gives the kind of violators of those laws or states language to use to their advantage as well. I mean it gives them a vocabulary to kind of justify their actions and their wrongs. And that's also dangerous in this world we live in today where everything is broadcast and communicated on different platforms. So that's, you know, that's also given them also a powerful tool, whether it's, you know, Vladimir Putin justifying his invasion of Ukraine or the many other countless.

[A]

Examples I wanted to get onto, particularly the situation we're in right now because 2025 has seen some pretty shocking things which seem to be, we've always seen shocking things but seem to be somehow tolerated more.

[C]

The IPC report says 16 children under.

[D]

The age of five have died of.

[C]

Hunger related causes since mid July. It is a famine, the Gaza famine.

[B]

All members of the United Nations Security Council, with the exception of the US have said that the famine in Gaza is man made.

[D]

We're learning new details about one of those deadly US Strikes on alleged drug.

[A]

Boats in the Caribbean.

[D]

Sources tell CNN the US military carried out a follow up strike on September 2nd. And today we're asking, has the Trump administration committed war crimes amid reports that the US Military killed two people clinging to wreckage in the sea after they survived an initial airstrike on their boat.

[A]

When I started this job in Geneva, it wasn't long after the United States had invaded Iraq, which we know Kofi Annan, then Secretary General, eventually said he felt it was an illegal invasion. And I went to the World Economic Forum and Dick Cheney, the late Dick Cheney was vice president and he gave a speech all about America's new doctrine and they wanted to adjust the Geneva Convention, said the audience of leaders from Europe and Latin America sat on their hands. He did not get a warm welcome. And now we see with the United States, even from here in Geneva, there's been very little open condemnation of, for example, these attacks on the boats in the Caribbean. We see now the United States siding with Russia at a UN Security Council vote. And Europe is a bit squashed in the middle and a bit nervous, I think. I mean, before we started, Nico, you were saying you thought the goalposts had really been moved.

[C]

Yes, I think they have been moved. Maybe not for everybody, certainly. I think you're right. The Europeans are in a difficult position strategically, largely because they realize that they depend on the US to such an extent that they can be played pretty easily. Right. So I think that has, of course, lost them lots of legitimacy, especially kind of around the Gaza war in that large parts of the rest of the world kind of see them as hypocritical in a sense, kind of only speaking out when things happen to their friends, but not when their own friends kind of commit crimes. So I think that is really a significant shift that the Western world that was always seen to be upholding those values of the international rule of law.

[A]

And lecturing other people.

[C]

And lecturing other people. That's right. Kind of have turned away from it or clearly have turned away whenever they don't suit them so much. So I think kind of that has shifted. I think for many others also, kind of the goalposts have been moved because you cannot simply rely on law compliance anymore on so many issues. So clearly this is going to erode the broader fabric of international law, which, as Danny rightly said, depends on countries complying in order for there to be a sense that there is a legal system. Right. There's no other enforcement of international law typically than international public opinion and the reactions of other states. So clearly, in that sense, I think something has changed. But it has also changed to quite some extent from Western centric vision of the international legal order towards a range of other states in the south and in the east, clamoring that international law should be complied with. And with good reason, really. The Westerners often accuse them of double standards of a variety of kinds, but on many points, they're right. It is the west now that is somewhat more blatantly often ignoring international law.

[A]

And with justification, being accused of double standards. We hear this at the UN Human Rights Council. Kasmira, you must have heard this a lot, that the Global south is just. Just looking at the huge outcry over the invasion of Ukraine, a justified outcry, and the couple of whispers about Gaza. Danny, you wanted to come in?

[D]

Yeah. Two short points. First, Imogen, it's lovely that you use the word shocking because it shows a conscience and it shows a certain understanding of values that not everyone shares. But my main point to come back to Nico, you're talking about the West. I mean, come on, let's talk about the United States and the role recently under Trump, specifically dealing with multilateralism, dealing with liberal values, has had enormous impact negatively on international law. And there is no question, Nico, you said it's positive to some extent that the law is moving out of Eurocentric. But, but on the other hand, the United States with European allies, has always been the leader in multilateralism since the Second World War. And without the United States in this aspect, I think it's terribly damaging for the role of international law. And if you have a system in the United States today which is constantly violating international law, it's very difficult to find another country or, or a person who's going to be. Mr. Or the state that's going to be behind international law. And I think that has to be said.

[A]

Do you think some people say we need to get on with this without the United States? They're so far out of the game now.

[B]

I mean, they're center of the tension, but they're not center of the world. And back to your point about double standards, I think that's definitely the narrative we hear a lot here. But at the same time, I spoke to, to Alain de Lettroux, who's head of the humanitarian NGO Geneva Corps that works with non state armed groups to try and convince them to comply to international law. And he said that there wasn't one country where they're working with at the moment where the commanders don't mention Gaza as a counterexample and ask why should they respect IHL if an official army doesn't? But that doesn't mean after that that they don't then work with them to put codes of conduct in place. I think, yes, that dialogue is there, but then beyond that, I think you see developing countries still very keen to still engage with some of these mechanisms, like the Universal Periodic Review. We saw the US not turn up to its Universal Periodic Review. They didn't show up. They were no show.

[A]

It's a precedent which many countries would not be proud of. But there we are.

[B]

No, exactly. But I think that does not mean that other countries won't. I mean, the fear is that other countries will then say, well, why should we show up if the United States, the champion of democracy and the founders of the UN Charter isn't, why should we? But I think you're still seeing countries very, still keen to engage with some of these mechanisms.

[A]

Do you think, Nico?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think among a large part of the Countries of the world, I think they are keen to continue as long as the system works reasonably well. But on the question of the US I completely agree with Danny that the US has been a main pillar behind the multilateral system and certainly its construction. Right. Without the US we wouldn't have the UN at all. But at the same time, it has had an ambivalent relationship with multilateral institutions and treaties for a long, long time. If you look at the number of treaties European countries have signed compared to the number of treaties the US has signed, there's a big gulf there. And we've seen this ambivalence behind lots of negotiations and institutions. So in a sense, it's never been merely kind of a nice and happy story. And now I think many more countries say, well, okay, so now we simply cannot count on the US Anymore. If we are in negotiations with them, we know that they're not going to sign this treaty. We listen to them. But because they're not going to come on board anyway, we have to somehow carry on regardless and know that we have to do it without them. You got to the Land Mines Convention also without the US without the great military powers in principle, which of course, may have been a birth defect of the Convention from the start, but it expressed a particular moral sentiment of large parts of the world. Right. To outlaw those kinds of horrible weapons. And I think kind of the sense that you, if you want to move forward, you have to somehow, you have to find the right moral compass, and then you have to kind of build as large a coalition as possible around it. But it will often, at least for the moment, not include the US and not Russia. Probably.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, in fact, in the last episode of Inside Geneva, we talked about Cop 30, and some of the people I talked to said it was actually easier not to have the United States there. Danny, you wanted to come in? And then I've got one last question.

[D]

Yeah, I mean, the question of the moral compass is a complicated one. Nico. Someone once told me a wonderful story. When the United States used to violate or do things, international law, the president or the Secretary of State would go to the legal advisor to the State Department and say, I'm going to do this, justify it. Now they don't even ask. And that's a fundamental change. Fundamental change. And I think the world looks at that. And the double standard that commits that, that's the double standard. Why should we do it? But when look what they're doing, therefore, there's not a leader today who is the moral compass. And says, no, this is totally unacceptable. We don't even have the Swiss defending the Geneva Conventions as I think they ought to. So we have a lack of leadership here. And I think there's something negative there. Nico, in terms of promoting international law.

[A]

You said, about what's changed and not asking whether we can do this or not. While I was preparing for this podcast, I was reading about this book by Giuliano Da the Hour of the Predator and what he's writing about. I have to be honest, I haven't read the whole thing. That there is a new populist class of political predators and digital conquistadors. What a phrase. And he basically is arguing that these people bonded together. And we have seen that in the United States, haven't we, with the business community, the political class and the tech giants, that they are basically saying there's a load of stuff we just don't need, like an independent judiciary and international law would fall into that. So I'm just wondering, we should offer our listeners some optimism at the end of the show. Is that what's coming and is it a bad thing, or are we going to be able to hang on to these, I mean, these fundamental principles, which I thought they were fundamental and were sticking around. Who wants to go first?

[D]

I mean, you raised the question, Imogen, of the thin line between the public and the private. What I think is positive is that we're living in a world that's more and more interdependent. If a flood happens in Asia, if a starvation, famine happens in another region, we all know about it. So in that sense, the complex interdependency we're seeing means that we have to react one way or another to what's going on. Therefore, because we're more cosmopolitan, there has to be basic fundamental ways that the world, the system has an order. We're in a certain sense in anarchy today about certain things, but certain things function. And I think that interdependence will lead us out of the problems we have today to something more positive.

[A]

Well, that is, that at least is positive. Kazmir, you got your hand up.

[B]

I'm piggybacking on that because I do think that the way that certain leaders today are acting is not sustainable. And so perhaps for a certain time we can do away with cherry picking bits of treaties and laws that they like best. But at some point there's going to be a reaction to that. And at that point we're going to have to fill that void and score going to be climate change. It's going to be massive natural disasters where we're forced to work together. And there's no denying that. I mean, he can deny climate all he wants, but there's going to be some point where even the United States is going to need help from other nations.

[A]

Nico, you've been waiting. You had your hand up first.

[C]

Oh, so. So many things to say. And kind of clearly I'm not in the great mood for optimism, I have to say. You ask us to be optimistic, but how optimistic can we be, right? If over the last 15 years, Freedom House has reported a decline in democratic values across the world kind of year after year, I think there's a serious crisis of liberal democracy, of the idea of rights, of protections, of popular participation that we have to face, and that will reflect into international law, international institutions. So I think kind of that's something we is probably going to shape much of the law that we see, and it might not be the best law that we might imagine. Right. If we come from a liberal democratic perspective. At the same time, I think because of that, interdependence countries need to cooperate somehow. Now, one shouldn't think that just because we have interdependence, countries immediately cooperate. Right. There's still a large step to be made. Climate clearly kind of a sort of a very big problem that we're not tackling as much. But. But clearly lots of countries have a need and a will to cooperate and also a language.

[D]

Right.

[C]

Sort of. I was at a conference in China a couple of months ago, and of course, everybody was talking about as if multilateralism was the only thing that you can talk about in foreign policy. Now, however, might take it with a grain of salt. But nevertheless, there is still much more of a rhetoric than you see in the US where taking the word international law into your mouth makes sure that you're not going to be heard in the administration. So kind of you don't want to want to do that. I think really kind of the turn from interdependence to cooperation will come primarily from countries that are not the great powers. They can often do without others, or they think they can do without others. Probably they cannot, but it takes them longer to see that. But it's smaller and middle powers, I think, that are likely to carry whatever will come next, and then hopefully we'll get the others somewhere on board. But for them, it is much more crucial to work with others in order to solve the problems they have. They simply cannot go it alone.

[A]

Well, I second that. I also think that there's going to have to be more cooperation of the like minded when it comes to these fundamental standards. I also want to leave on a note of optimism, but I am worried, I am worried about this predator populist big tech that this grouping doesn't seem to have time for the law unless it suits them. And that would include international law and the, the basic international human rights law. I'm reminded where we started with the Second World War, that we got these laws because we made some awful, awful, awful mistakes and committed some terrible crimes. And what I really hope is that we don't have to reinvent all this stuff because we made the same mistakes again. But let's hope not. The fact that we're even here sitting talking about it is a good sign that brings us to the end of this edition of Inside Geneva. Thank you all very much. Danny Warner, Nico Karish, Kazmira Jefford. Next time on INSIDE geneva. Just a little reminder. Despite all the cuts in humanitarian funding, there are aid workers posted all over the world who in December, many of them will be spending their time away from their families and their friends and their homes because they are working in places like Ukraine or in South Sudan. And we're going to be hearing from three of them. So tune in on the 23rd of December for a holiday special. I'm Imogen, folks. Thanks for listening.

A reminder, you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss info production. You can subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes, how the International Red Cross Unites Prisoners of War with Their Families or why Survivors of Human Rights Violations Turn to the UN In Geneva for Justice. I'm Imogen, folks. Thanks again for listening.