The Lawfare Podcast

“38 Londres Street,” Impunity, and Immunity with Philippe Sands

Host: Tyler McBrien (Lawfare Institute)
Guest: Philippe Sands (Professor of Law, University of London; Samuel Pisar Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School)
Date: October 7, 2025

Overview

In this episode, Tyler McBrien interviews renowned international lawyer and author Philippe Sands about his new book, 38 Londres Street: On Impunity, Pinochet in England and a Nazi in Patagonia. The discussion traverses the personal and historical threads that connect Nazi war criminal Walter Rauff and Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, explores landmark legal questions around impunity and immunity for international crimes, and reflects on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. Sands elucidates how his trilogy of books traces the evolution of international criminal law through personal narrative and historical investigation.

Key Discussion Points

The Origins of the Trilogy and "38 Londres Street"

• Accidental Beginnings
  • Sands recounts how a speaking invitation to the University of Lviv (Lemberg) led him to discover connections between his family and major architects of international law (Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin). (“This is an accidental trilogy. I received an invitation back in 2010 from an obscure university...I accept, once I discover that Lviv is Lemberg and that's where my grandfather happened to be born.” – Sands, 05:12)
• The Narrative Arc
  • Each book in the trilogy (East West Street, The Ratline, and now 38 Londres Street) connects personal family history to broader legal developments.
  • The story eventually traces a “straight line” from Nazi legal minds to crimes in Pinochet’s Chile.
• Personal Connection
  • Sands uncovers a familial link to a key victim in the origins of the Pinochet case, Carmelo Soria, making his investigation even more intimately connected. (“She says, of course, of course I’d forgotten cousin Carmelo.” – 34:07)

Connecting Nazi Crimes to Pinochet: The Stories of Walter Rauff & Augusto Pinochet

• Walter Rauff’s Journey
  • Rauff, a top Nazi responsible for mobile gas vans, escapes to South America, ultimately settling and thriving in Chile.
  • There, Rauff befriends Pinochet and is rumored to play a role in the machinery of repression under the Pinochet regime.
  • Notably, Pablo Neruda wrote an Op-Ed condemning the Chilean Supreme Court’s refusal to extradite Rauff. (“The one thing we can say with certainty about this man is that he knows all there is to know about vans.” – paraphrasing Neruda, 22:15)
• Intersecting Paths With Pinochet
  • Sands explores tantalizing overlaps: Rauff's early presence in Chile, Pinochet's rise, and how the former Nazi could have influenced or assisted Pinochet’s security apparatus.
  • Detailed detective work reveals that victims and even perpetrators directly identified Rauff’s presence in notorious torture centers like 38 Londres Street. (“He recognized the face of Walter Rauff…he swore black and blue, 'Walter Rauff interrogated me.'” – 26:17)

The Arrest and Legal Proceedings Against Pinochet

• Personal Role and “Cab Rank Principle”
  • Sands describes nearly acting for Pinochet (due to the barrister’s principle of taking any client)—derailed only by his wife’s firm ethical stance and his own public advocacy on the issue (“If you do it, I will divorce you tomorrow. So I didn’t do it.” – 11:32).
• The Watershed London Arrest
  • Pinochet’s 1998 arrest on a Spanish warrant marked the first time a former head of state was detained in another country on international criminal charges.
  • The backstory includes a remarkable series of chance events—a British embassy official’s helpful tip to Judge Garzon led to the warrant being issued in a “tiny window of opportunity.” (“If John Dew had not called Balthazar Garzon on the morning of the 16th, none of this would have happened.” – 38:42)
• Behind-the-Scenes Political Machinations
  • Both Chile and UK governments discreetly negotiated Pinochet’s post-extradition fate, ultimately ensuring (with documentary proof) he would face justice at home rather than in Spain. (“There was a deal...they wanted documentary evidence...they said, we want a document...with Pinochet’s signature on it, confirming that Pinochet ordered [killings].” – 62:11)

Legal Legacy: Impunity, Immunity, and Universal Jurisdiction

• Nuremberg to Pinochet: The Evolution
  • Sands draws a direct line from the Nuremberg principles (no immunity for heads of state accused of international crimes) to the Pinochet case and beyond. (“Immunity is an obsolete relic of a bygone age...No one is above the law.” – quoting Robert Jackson, 46:35)
• Pinochet’s Legal Precedent
  • The House of Lords ultimately found that international treaties, particularly the Convention Against Torture, allowed for prosecution of former heads of state in national courts—though with temporal and technical limitations. (“The precedent is set for the first time in the Pinochet case. And that has now been followed in many other jurisdictions.” – 52:16)
  • Sands discusses the complexity and imperfections in the rulings, acknowledging the influence of realpolitik and judicial caution. (“My own read...is that they disagreed with Pinochet No. 1. They thought that court went too far.” – 54:24)
• Political and Ethical Dilemmas
  • Sands questions the legitimacy of a former colonial power (Spain) prosecuting Pinochet when it never addressed its own Francoist crimes, highlighting ongoing global tensions in the application of universal jurisdiction. (“What is the right of a country that has never investigated its own crimes to exercise jurisdiction over the crimes perpetrated in another country, which happens to be its former colony?” – 59:13)

Modern Parallels: The U.S. Supreme Court's Immunity Ruling (Trump v. US, 2024)

• Comparative Legal Reasoning
  • Sands parallels the Pinochet decisions to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting (at least presumptive) immunity to former presidents for official acts—warning of the possible fallout for international accountability.
  • Quote: “It is possible that a US president who engages in torture or disappearance or crimes against humanity or even genocide would or could have an absolute immunity…” – 68:03
  • He underscores the incredulity of international legal minds regarding the U.S. decision, relaying Lord Hope’s assessment as “absolutely ridiculous.” (66:25)
• Implications for Rule of Law
  • Sands’ “thought experiment” imagines if Robert Jackson’s logic at Nuremberg had been replaced with the contemporary U.S. court’s reasoning, painting a grim picture for accountability and global leadership.
    • Quote: “We accept the paradox that legal responsibility should be the least where power is the greatest...” – 70:02

Notable Quotes and Moments

• On personal discovery and history:
  • “The story interests me...with those words I learned that my wife, and hence me, had this whole Chilean family. Within an hour we were on the phone to relatives in Spain and Chile.” (34:07)
• On the randomness of history:
  • “Actually, very often it's much more prosaic than that. It's some accident that causes some individual to do something.” (35:41)
• On the power of the Pinochet precedent:
  • “That's why it's not a story, in my view, of absolute impunity...the arrest brought a degree of justice to the Chilean legal system.” (62:58)
• On the global consequences of U.S. immunity doctrine:
  • “It will make it very difficult in the future for the US to point the finger of accountability to foreign leaders who cross lines if their own president or presidents are going to benefit from either a blanket or partial immunity...” (71:26)

Timestamps of Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:16 | Opening discussion, origins of Sands’ trilogy | | 07:30 | Link between Walter Rauff and Pinochet | | 11:18 | The “cab rank principle” and Sands’ personal ethical dilemma | | 17:04 | Chasing Rauff’s and Pinochet’s interconnected stories | | 24:15 | Discovery of eyewitness testimony from victims & perpetrators | | 36:00 | The “accidents” behind the Pinochet arrest | | 45:42 | Evolution of immunity doctrine in international law | | 51:01 | House of Lords’ technical and temporal immunity rulings | | 54:24 | Realpolitik and judicial reasoning in the Pinochet case | | 59:13 | Doubts about Spanish claims to universal jurisdiction | | 62:11 | The deal to bring Pinochet back to Chile with evidence | | 64:35 | Discussion of the July 2024 U.S. Supreme Court immunity decision| | 68:22 | Sands’ “thought experiment” on Jackson v. Roberts on immunity | | 71:26 | Consequences of the US decision for global accountability |

Tone and Style

The discussion is erudite, engaging, and often personal—blending courtroom and historical detective work with vivid personal and moral reflection. Sands is candid about his perspective, the limitations of the law, and the importance of storytelling in legal history:

“Readers are smart. They're really smart. My job is just to lay out the material and leave it to the readers to form their own view.” (28:13)

Conclusion

This episode weaves together riveting history, legal innovation, and urgent contemporary dilemmas, showing how the shadows of past impunity and the legal architectures built to respond to them still echo in today’s debates about the power and accountability of national leaders. Sands leaves listeners with the sobering warning that current trends, especially in the U.S., could undermine decades of progress in international criminal justice and the commitment to the equal application of law.