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.