Lawfare Daily: The State of IHL

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast — Lawfare Daily: The State of IHL (Feb 26, 2026)

Overview

This episode of the Lawfare Podcast, hosted by Lauren Voss, focuses on the current status of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) amid growing global conflict and technological advancements in warfare. Lauren is joined by Stuart Casey-Maslin, head of the Geneva Academy’s IHL in Focus Project, to discuss their comprehensive report on IHL compliance from July 2024 to late 2025. The conversation examines emerging threats to IHL, the proliferation of new technologies like drones and autonomous weapons, the effectiveness of existing treaties, and prospects for new legal frameworks.

---

Main Discussion & Key Points

1. The Geneva Academy’s Motivation for the Report

• Filling an Information Gap: The Geneva Academy undertook this project because existing organizations (ICRC, UN) are constrained by confidentiality or political pressure and cannot name perpetrators. As an academic institution, the Geneva Academy can address violations more openly.
• Quote:

  “The advantage that we have as an academic institution is that where we have the evidence, we're able to say it. Even though that might be uncomfortable reading for certain governments.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [03:19]

2. IHL’s Precarious State and Trends in Violations

• No 'Golden Age': There has never been perfect compliance with IHL; however, recent years show a marked deterioration, with grave violations becoming normalized.
• Recent Crises: The conflicts in Gaza and Sudan exemplify alarming civilian harm and lawlessness.
• Rise in Sexual Violence: Especially highlighted in Sudan, with gang rapes now occurring openly in the streets, surpassing previous horrors and signaling systemic failure to protect civilians.
• Quote:

  “There was never a golden age… violations, serious violations, almost becoming accepted, almost being identified as the new normal.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [04:31]

• Technological Impact: Precision technologies should be reducing harm, but are often used to deliberately target civilians. Drones, originally potentially protective of civilian lives, are increasingly used by both state and non-state actors to attack civilian targets.
• Quote:

  “These weapons give the party to the conflict the possibility to be precise… Instead, what are we seeing? We're seeing their use… to deliberately target civilians.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [01:25]

3. Proliferation of Drones and Autonomous Weapon Systems

• Spread to Non-State Actors: Armed drone technology is now common among non-state actors, increasing risks for civilians.
• Trend Towards Autonomy: With jamming and hacking risks, full autonomy in weapons is becoming more likely. Concerns are raised that algorithms cannot make nuanced decisions about surrenders or distinguish non-combatants.
• Quote:

  “When you're leaving it to the algorithm, the algorithm can't take a surrender. The algorithm can't decide whether a civilian is directly participating in hostilities or not. They just don't have that ability.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [10:08]

4. Strategic and Legal Implications of Civilian Targeting

• Self-Defeating Tactics: Deliberate attacks on civilians undermine military objectives and invite allegations of war crimes.
• Divergence Among Actors: The report credits Ukraine for, largely, not responding to Russian indiscriminate tactics in kind, showing compliance is possible even under immense pressure.
• Quote:

  “You want to eliminate the enemy… Make sure that you're not harming civilians, that you're not laying yourself open to a charge of a war crime.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [11:40]

5. Case Study: Ukraine

• Escalating Civilian Harm: The report documents a surge in civilian casualties in Ukraine, attributed to Russian missile strikes targeting energy infrastructure and civilian areas—strategies proven ineffective in changing wartime resolve.
• Quote:

  “There is no evidence that that works. We tried that in the Second World War… All it does is reinforce the fact that you need to fight on.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [21:58]

6. Enforcement, Accountability, and Legal Mechanisms

• Weakened Accountability: Pressure on funding and political support for bodies like the ICC and the UN Human Rights Council undermines enforcement.
• Quote:

  “If ever we needed international criminal law to support the compliance and respect of international humanitarian law, it's now... Taking them away, undermining them, most certainly makes the situation worse.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [23:14]

7. Shortcomings of Existing Treaties & Need for New Rules

• Outdated Legal Regime: Core combat rules were drafted in the 1970s. Today’s weapons, such as precision-guided munitions, are not required over populated areas, and problematic weapons like cluster munitions and white phosphorus remain inadequately regulated.
• Political Declarations vs. Binding Treaties: Soft law instruments like the 2022 Explosive Weapons Declaration are useful but lack specifics and teeth compared to treaties.
• Quote:

  “It is still okay to drop gravity ordnance from 45,000ft. It's still okay to fire cluster missions by artillery from 50km away into a populated area. That cannot be right.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [24:38]

8. Outlook: Is Progress Possible?

• Historical Optimism: While the current moment is grim, precedents from the Cold War show that even after existential crises, new treaties can emerge.
• Call to Action: The only way forward is to try for new rules—waiting for the “right moment” risks perpetual inaction.
• Quote:

  “If we say, oh well, it's not a good time. It's never a good time, but it is always a good time to try.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [27:36]

9. The Geneva Academy’s Ongoing Work

• Continuous Monitoring: The Academy updates its “War Watch” website with ongoing conflict reports, including recent uploads on Venezuela, Haiti, and Mexico, with hopes of contributing to improved transparency and debate about compliance.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the myth of a 'golden age':

  “The golden age that never existed. Yeah, I'd settle for bronze, frankly. And we're a long, long way from that.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [29:20]

• On the role of technology:

  “We humans are the ones that are setting the algorithm… We could program them to be even more protective of human life, of civilian life, than IHL requires. That is a decision that we could take.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [10:52]

• On the future of IHL compliance:

  “We want people to use this report, to read this report and to comment on this report and hope that we can contribute to at least steadying the ship. I won't suggest back to a golden age.”
  — Stuart Casey-Maslin [29:04]

---

Key Timestamps

• [01:25] Emergence of drone use by state and non-state actors; deliberate targeting of civilians.
• [03:19] Why the Geneva Academy report was needed; independence to name violators.
• [04:31] The existential threat to IHL and normalization of violations.
• [06:01 - 07:50] Trends: increased sexual violence and misuse of precision technology.
• [08:22 - 10:39] Drone proliferation, autonomy, and IHL implications.
• [11:40] Critique of targeting civilians and comparative IHL compliance.
• [13:00] Example of Ukrainian restraint and strategic value of IHL.
• [21:58] Reasons for increased civilian casualties in Ukraine.
• [23:14] Urgency of accountability mechanisms.
• [24:38] Need for treaty updates; outdated weapon regulation.
• [26:17] On the inadequacy of non-binding declarations.
• [27:36] On the potential for treaty progress despite adversity.
• [28:21] Announcement of the War Watch website and ongoing monitoring.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a sobering yet necessary examination of IHL’s erosion in practice and the challenges posed by modern warfare technologies. Through concrete examples and historical perspective, Stuart Casey-Maslin underscores the dire need for renewed legal innovation, sustained monitoring, and collective action to limit the civilian harms of conflict. The key takeaway: while a return to a mythical “golden age” is unrealistic, incremental progress is still possible—and urgently needed—through transparency, advocacy, and legal reform.

Transcript

[Ben Wittes]

The Electronic Communications Privacy act turns 40 this year and it's showing its age. On Friday, March 6, Lawfare and Georgetown Law are bringing together leading scholars, practitioners and former government officials for installing updates to ecpa, a half day event on what's broken with the statute and how to fix it. The event is free and open to the public in person and online. Visit lawfaremedia.org ecpaevent that's lawfairmedia.org ecpaevent for details and to register.

[Advertisement Voice 1]

Want to change the efficiency game AI it automate tedious tasks to spend more time on the future Transform the everyday with Siemens why choose a sleep number Smart bed Can I make my site softer?

[Advertisement Voice 2]

Can I make my site firmer?

[Ben Wittes]

Can I can we sleep cooler?

[Advertisement Voice 1]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now during our President's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed plus an extra $100 off all mattresses. And Saturday only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

We're seeing a huge increase in the use of armed drones by states, but also by non state actors. And again, these weapons give the party to the conflict the possibility to be precise, to actually target, to minimize civilian harm. Instead, what are we seeing? We're seeing their use by the Russians in Kherson Province to to deliberately target civilians.

[Lauren Voss]

It's the lawfare podcast. I'm Lauren Voss, Public Service Fellow at lawfare, with Stuart Casey Maslin, the head of the IHL in Focus Project at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights and a visiting professor at the University of Johannesburg.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

It is still okay to drop gravity ordnance from 45,000ft. It's still okay to fire cluster missions by artillery from 50km away into a populated area. That cannot be right. So looking at that picture, I think we need to look at the rules or particularly the types of weapons that are permissible in a populated area.

[Lauren Voss]

Today we're talking about the status of international humanitarian law. The rules based international order and international law in general appear to be under attack from multiple fronts. Ihl, on the other hand, has arguably been under attack for years with significant violations occurring with relative impunity. So what's the current status of ihl? Well, most may use one or two conflicts. As an example, the Geneva Academy has created a massive report covering July 2024 to the end of 2025 and covers the major armed conflicts around the World. Stuart, the head of the project, is here today to talk to us about what they found and what it means for the status of ihl. So, Stuart, let's jump right in. Can you start by just explaining to us why Geneva Academy puts out?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

I mean, I think the answer is very simply because nobody else was doing it. And it's a huge gap in terms of compliance. Obviously, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the icrc, has a lot of information on violations, but they're bound by their rules of confidentiality, and they couldn't possibly put out a report of this nature and identify the perpetrators. Likewise, the UN does some important work in particular conflicts through its Commissioners of Inquiry, through the Secretary General's best offices and so on. But they are also subject to pressures from governments. I guess the advantage that we have as an academic institution is that where we have the evidence, we're able to say it. Even though that might be uncomfortable reading for certain governments.

[Lauren Voss]

Yeah, that's really helpful. I mean, I feel like this fills a gap that no one else is able to do right now. So one of the big conclusions coming out of this most recent report is that there's a threat to IHL that is not yet existential, but close to breaking point. That sounds very scary. So can you tell us what that means? I mean, is this threat worse than it's been in previous years?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

I mean, I think the first thing to say is there was never a golden age. There was never a point where IHL was perfectly respected. And we would be naive and disingenuous to suggest that there was. But I think there is something different. And I think we look back over the last 20 or so years and we see this degeneration. We see violations, serious violations, almost becoming accepted, almost being identified as the new normal. Of course, over the last 18 months, we've had two particular horrors, one being Gaza, the other being Sudan, without understating the problem in other conflicts, but I think the level of civilian harm in those two conflicts in particular has shown us that we are on a very dangerous path. And if we move elsewhere, we look at the situation in the Sahel, you have a variety of Islamist groups who are deliberately targeting civilians with a whole range of horrors. Again, not entirely new, but the extent to which this is occurring, I think that is extremely worrying.

[Lauren Voss]

Yeah, it's interesting that you say, you know, over the last 20 years, we've seen this degradation, but it seems like it's accelerated as of recent. So when you looked at all of these different conflicts, and I know there's been more than one of this report. Can you talk to me about some of the trends you've seen across conflicts? You know what really stuck out at you? Was anything surprising?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

I'm not sure surprising. Shocking for certain, and shocking because technology has advanced to the extent that if we so wished, we could make attacks far more precise than in the past.

[Lauren Voss]

In fact.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

In fact, the number of violations that the civilian harm should be plunging because we have the ability to deliver munitions onto their targets in a way we simply didn't have during the Vietnam War, for example, or during the war in Chechnya even. We have the ability to be far more precise in our targeting, but we choose not to do it. In terms of trends, I guess there are two that stick out. One is the extent of sexual violence. Again, not a new phenomenon. I'm not suggesting it is. But the situation in Sudan in particular, gang rapes in the street. Even seasoned watchers of the horrors in Sudan going back to the 2005 genocide, have said this is something new. That means that we are failing in our duty to protect these people. And the second issue I would say is drones. We are seeing, ever since the Armenia, Azerbaijan conflict, and of course, very much in Ukraine, we're seeing a huge increase in the use of armed drones by states, but also by non state actors. And again, these weapons give the party to the conflict the possibility to be precise, to actually target, to minimize civilian arm. Instead, what are we seeing? We're seeing their use by the Russians in Kherson Province to deliberately target civilians. So a means of warfare that should be preserving civilian life is being dedicated to its destruction.

[Lauren Voss]

Yeah, this is really depressing to talk about, but I feel like it's important for us to talk about it, especially when you say that we're failing in our duty to protect people. One of the other things that you just mentioned was the technology piece and specifically the use of drones. And so I'm wondering if you can talk about the proliferation of drones and this other advanced technology specifically to non state actors. Is that changing what we're seeing on the ground in compliance with ihl?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

It's certainly changing what we're seeing on the ground. And there I would say the picture's a little bit more mixed. You've got use by certain actors, whether it's Islamic State in Somalia, whether it's the drug cartels in Colombia. You're using it sometimes to target civilians and sometimes in compliance with IHL to target the enemy military forces. So there it's a bit more of A mixed bag, I guess. The problem is the broader that this technology propagates, the bigger the risk overall for civilians. And a few years ago, the idea that a non state actor would have an armed drone was very much the exception. It is swiftly becoming the rule. It, it's cheap, it's easy for them, they attach a munition to a cheap quadcopter and so on, and it can be effective. Whether that's used for lawful purposes or to violate IHL is obviously down to the individual perpetrator, but for sure this technology is going to be used more and more. The next step will be full autonomy, because you can still interrupt the signal from the operator to, to the drone, which is what they've done to a very great extent in Ukraine, both by the Ukrainian forces and by the Russian forces. So where does that inexorably lead? That leads to fully autonomous weapons. And anyone who believes that we're suddenly going to ban fully autonomous weapons, I'm afraid, is not living in the real world.

[Lauren Voss]

Yeah. So if I can follow up with that. With the ability to hack or affect the data link of these drones, making them fully autonomous, from an IHL perspective, what issues does that raise? Does that raise additional concerns?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

It certainly raises additional concerns. It does not mean that per se, they will be unlawful. But of course, when you're leaving it to the algorithm, the algorithm can't take a surrender. The algorithm can't decide whether a civilian is directly participating in hostilities or not. They just don't have that ability. That's a human decision. So it is instinctively dangerous. Whether it will lead to greater civilian casualties, we will hopefully not, sadly, but we will find out.

[Lauren Voss]

Yeah, it just makes it so critical that you think about the development of these new weapons systems, especially autonomous ones. What the development rules will be, what will be the oversight. How will you track usage?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

That's a really important point because again, this is our decision. We humans are the ones that are setting the algorithm, our programming. These weapons. We could program them to be even more protective of human life, of civilian life, than IHL requires. That is a decision that we could take. The risk, of course, is that we give them free rein. And when they're over an area, a populated area, anyone they see, they're entitled to attack. And that, of course, is going to lead to a massive increase in serious violations against civilians.

[Lauren Voss]

Yeah, I imagine what you're seeing right now is probably somewhere in the middle, but without access to the algorithms, we may not even know what the rules are for these drones.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

That's True and the ultimate. It's so stupid. If you just take it from a military perspective, just targeting civilians is not going to win you the conflict. You want to eliminate the enemy. That's what your aim is. So focus on the enemy. Make sure that you're not harming civilians, that you're not laying yourself open to a charge of a war crime. Unfortunately, we have seen a number of conflicts, and the obvious one being Russia's behavior in Ukraine. A party to a conflict that does not believe in the preservation of human life.

[Lauren Voss]

Yeah, it just makes me think of the conversations that have been going on. The US Would call it civilian harm mitigation. NATO and Europe tended to focus on the broader protection of civilians. But the fact that it's not just about legal compliance, but from a strategic perspective, being more protective of civilians is actually a better outcome for your conflict. And it seems like this is one of those places where you would hope you would see that with the development of this new technology, but it doesn't seem like we're seeing that in cases of all actors. And we see some actors particularly using this new technology to potentially be more accurate and precise at targeting civilians.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

That's absolutely right. And if we. We can obviously reinforce many of the horrors that we describe in the report. But we also give credit where credit is due. And the Ukrainians have not responded in kind. There have been some violations that we detail in the report, but they pale into insignificance when you compare to the Russian conduct and their violations of the fundamental rules of ihl. So we can see it is perfectly possible to fight a war and comply with ihl. Indeed, it is to your advantage to do so, even though the evidence in practice might tend to suggest the contrary.

[Ben Wittes]

DeleteMe makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Hey folks, the other day I got a phishing attack. And I got to tell you, it was good. Even some of the URLs looked real and I almost fell for it. But it was missing one thing. It was missing any personal information about me. And that made me really glad that I used Delete Me. Delete Me does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broke website so that when the phishing attack comes for you, it doesn't have something that makes it really seem authentic. Delete Me knows your privacy is worth protecting. Sign up and provide Delete Me with exactly the information you want deleted and their experts take it from there. I am someone with an active online presence. I express political opinions and I am not looking to have that turned against me with personal information about me used in spear phishing attacks. You know I've been the victim of identity theft harassment, and if you haven't, you probably know someone who has. And I'm telling you I'm an example of this. Delete Me can help. So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for Lawfare listeners. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com lawfare20 and use the promo code lawfare20 at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare20 and enter the code lawfare20 at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare 20 code lawfare20

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

hey

[Ben Wittes]

folks, Ben Whittis here. This episode is brought to you by the folks at Ground News. I want to talk to you about media and Trust People. Listen to this podcast and read Lawfare's content because Lawfare brings people information and analysis of a particularly high quality and that generates trust in an era when trust in news and media sources is low. Ground News is another organization that is working to create trust in media and media worthy of trust. It's an app that doesn't just bring you news on subjects you're interested in, it curates that news so that you can see information that people of your own political persuasion are likely to miss. It's not publishing its own stuff, but it's also doing a lot more than aggregating. It's identifying stories that are filling a blind spot that is pervasive for the left or for the right. For example, the app also shows you bias ratings and factuality ratings for each news organization covering a story so that you can see whether the story you're interested in is mostly being covered by news organizations of the left, right or center. Let me give you a specific example. I just returned from Ukraine, so I was particularly interested to see how Ground News would handle stories about the war there. It flagged that an important story about deadly Russian strikes in Ukraine is being largely ignored by right wing press. On the other hand, it also flagged that left outlets are ignoring a story about Ukrainian nationals in Germany charged with trying to send parcel bombs to Ukraine at the direction of Russian intelligence. These blind spot notices are really useful as a way of seeing what information you are probably not seeing on stories of interest to you. Or consider the recent story about President Trump proposing voting reforms that demand voter ID and proof of citizenship of would be voters. The Ground News app shows 29 media organizations reporting on this story, and it shows radically different headlines associated with it depending on the ideological valence of the outlet from the free press Washington power struggle Jeffries moves to block Trump's plan for federal election oversight. By contrast, the Daily coast headline Republicans bail on states rights so Trump can rig elections again. You can see information about each news organization's bias tendencies and its factuality ratings. You can even see information about its ownership. I find Ground News an impressive tool for checking my own biases and the biases of the media I consume, and for seeing the news that people like me generally don't see. I encourage you to check it out. You can get Ground News's Vantage subscription for 40% off, which allows unlimited access to the Ground News app by visiting groundnews.comlaw that's groundnews.comlaw one more time. Groundnews.comlaw check it out. I really think you'll be glad you did

[Advertisement Voice 2]

AI is transforming Customer service. It's real and it works. And with fin, we've built the number one AI agent for customer service. We're seeing lots of cases where it's solving up to 90% of radio real queries for real businesses. This includes the real world complex stuff like issuing a refund or canceling an order. And we also see it when FIN goes up against competitors. It's top of all the performance benchmarks, top of the G2 leaderboard. And if you're not happy, we'll refund you up to a million dollars. Which I think says it all. Check it out for yourself at FIN AI. That new thing? Yeah, we've got it. The drop by GNC bringing you all the newness that matters. Hand picked by the pros who actually know what's up and what's proven to work. We keep you on top of the trend and dialed into what's next. Whether you're crushing it at the gym, leveling up your game, or thriving every day, the drop by GNC is where the latest solutions in health and wellness land first nonstop innovation and fresh finds daily explore what's new and what's next

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

on the drop by GNC it's 2026

[Advertisement Voice 1]

and if you're still paying rent without Bilt, it's time for a change. BILT is the loyalty program for renters that rewards you for your biggest Monthly expense Rent. I don't like paying rent and I bet you don't either. But BILT makes it feel a little better. BILT is the loyalty program for renters that rewards you monthly with points and exclusive benefits in your neighborhood. Let me explain. With bilt, every rent payment earns you points that can be used towards flights, hotels, Lyft rides, Amazon.com purchases and so much more. And here's something I'm really excited about. Now BILT members can earn points on mortgage payments for the first time. Soon you'll be able to get rewarded wherever you live and unlock exclusive benefits with more than 45,000 restaurants, fitness studios, pharmacies and other neighborhood partners. Personally, I'd use my BILT points for travel. Turning rent into flights feels like a win. It's simple. Paying rent is better with bilt. And now owning a home will be better with BILT too. Earn rewards and get something back wherever you live. Join the loyalty program for renters at joinbilt.com acasta that's J-O-I N B I L T.com acast make sure to use our URL so they know we sent you.

[Lauren Voss]

Yeah. So I'd like to ask you a bit more about Ukraine. You know, one of the things your report found was a significant increase in civilian casualties in Ukraine from from previous years. So what? What has changed on the ground in tactics? Why that huge increase?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

So the Russians have been using in particular missile attacks on the one hand, as everyone knows, have been focusing on the energy infrastructure. Those are either civilian objects or the impact is disproportionate. But they have also been deliberately targeting civilian areas, I presume in the hope that somehow this will force Ukraine to give in to sue for peace. There is no evidence that that works. We tried that in the Second World War, the bombing of German cities. The Germans tried it against us. That doesn't work. All it does is reinforce the fact that you need to fight on because that's the kind of fate that awaits you. And Ukrainians know what would happen if they were to surrender to the Russian forces. They know what fate awaits them. So it's a very short sighted. Unfortunately, it's a short sighted policy that is counted in blood.

[Lauren Voss]

That makes me wonder at a bigger picture then, not just about Ukraine, but worldwide with these conflicts you've been researching. What's your biggest concerns about IHL enforcement and accountability? What is your worries going forward as we see all of these violations occurring?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

Well, if ever we needed international criminal law to support the compliance and respect of international humanitarian law. It's now, and this is the very time that funding is under pressure, that there are even sanctions imposed by the US against the judges at the International Criminal Court. That is not how we increase compliance with ihl. We need funding. We need political support for the human rights mechanisms. We're here in Geneva. Just down the road you have the Human Rights Council, which sets up important accountability mechanisms. These are critical for the long term. They don't transform the situation. You know, it doesn't make it all right. But taking them away, undermining them, most certainly makes the situation worse.

[Lauren Voss]

Yeah, I feel like there has been quite a lot of news recently about some of those attacks on the International Criminal Court and other enforcement mechanisms. So one thing that your report also does, though, is it recommends that there should be new treaty rules. Right. Stating that these new treaty rules are necessary to deal with specific types of new weapons. And so I'm curious, as we talk about enforcement and accountability of ihl, why did you find that the current treaty rules are not sufficient to deal with the conflicts of today?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

I think there are a couple of issues. Firstly, it's important to say that the fundamental rules governing the conduct of hostilities, the fighting, the use of weapons, were drafted in the 1970s. That was a different world in 1977 when the Additional Protocol 1 was adopted. Since then, we have precision guided munitions, but IHL still does not require at least overpopulated areas that we use precision guided munitions. It is still okay to drop gravity ordnance from 45,000ft. It's still okay to fire cluster missions by artillery from 50km away into a populated area. That cannot be right. So looking at that picture, I think we need to look at the rules or particularly the types of weapons that are permissible in a populated area. We also, I would say some of it's not new, some of it's old. We had the. The problem of white phosphorus being used. We have the problem of incendiary weapons, that's napalm and thermite and whatever that are still not outlawed by customary law, those kind of things, states could agree to relegate to the dustbin of history. If I can use a bit of a cliche and then focus on the weapons that are lawful and use them in a discriminate manner. It is perfectly possible to do that.

[Lauren Voss]

If I can ask on that. I mean, there was a political declaration on explosive weapons in populated areas that a number of countries signed a couple years ago. Do you find political declarations insufficient to meet the need that you're talking about here.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

I mean something like a soft floor instrument like the explosive weapons declaration, I think is a helpful start. I guess my concern is there is no specific weapon that is mentioned. For example, multiple barrel rocket launchers are known for being notorious for being inaccurate when fired from dozens of kilometers away. Why are they not mentioned in the declaration? Why are states not saying you cannot use those into a populated area? That would be a very simple statement and that would save lives. We also have weakness around. We obviously have the treaty banning anti personnel mines. Sadly, a few European states, as you know, have withdrawn from that, most recently Poland last Friday. So there's that issue. But what about anti vehicle mines? Because they don't discriminate between a school bus or a tank. Can we not increase. I'm not suggesting ban, but can we not increase the regulation so that there are at least deactivation mechanisms, which means that these things are not killing people decades or years after they were laid.

[Lauren Voss]

How feasible do you think it is to develop new treaty rules? Or do you think it might be more feasible if it's narrow to specific weapons or weapon classes? Or do you think this is just an uphill battle in the current environment?

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

I mean, I know people are pessimistic because the world is in a pretty bad state in terms of armed conflict and observance with ihl. But if we look back at history, we see occasions where the world came very close to annihilation. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, was followed by the Partial Test Ban Treaty and then the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Treaty. In our darkest hour, when we almost eliminated humankind, we came up with new treaty roles and that was at the height of the Cold War. So yes, we have huge problems, but the only way we find out is if we try and if we say, oh well, it's not a good time. It's never a good time, but it is always a good time to try.

[Lauren Voss]

I like that. Optimistic note.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

We are now doing these reports on a an annual calendar year basis, but we don't wait for the end of the year. So we have our website called War Watch. As the name suggests, Warwatch ch, which is updated on an ongoing basis. And we recently uploaded the report on Venezuela. We reported on Haiti late last year and we're starting to work on Mexico at the moment.

[Lauren Voss]

That's great. I'm happy to hear that this is continuing on and that we'll be able to continue to use this as a reference. I mean, I've seen a number of news stories where people who are interviewed that are leaders on this topic reference the report and what came out of it. So I think it'll be a very incredibly useful resource going forward.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

And we want people to use this report, to read this report and to comment on this report and hope that we can contribute to at least steadying the ship. I won't suggest back to a golden age.

[Lauren Voss]

The golden age that never existed, according to you.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

The golden age that never existed. Yeah, I'd settle for bronze, frankly. And we're a long, long way from that.

[Lauren Voss]

Okay, well, I'm happy that there's people like you working on these issues, though. That I think helps us have some optimism for the future. So we'll leave it there today. Thank you Stuart for joining the Lawfare Podcast today.

[Stuart Casey-Maslin]

Thanks very much for having me.

[Lauren Voss]

The Lawfare Podcast is produced by the Lawfare Institute. If you want to support the show and listen ad free, you can become a Lawfare material [e-mail] support supporters also get access to special events and other bonus content we don't share anywhere else. If you enjoyed the podcast, please rate and review us wherever you listen. It really does help. And be sure to check out our other shows, including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation. Our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. You can also find all of our written [e-mail] the podcast is edited by Jen Patia with audio engineering by Kara Shillin of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music and as always, thanks for listening.

[Advertisement Voice 1]

Need real insight from industrial data versit with a single source of everything and get the best outcomes Transform the everyday with Siemens.