EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 39: Holding the Line
Nov 14, 2025
Nicolas Angelet, a Professor at the University of Ghent and expert in international law, joins Oona Hathaway, a Yale Law professor and director at the Center for Global Legal Challenges. They dive into the legality of recent U.S. military strikes against suspected drug boats, critiquing the justifications of self-defense and the implications for extraterritorial human rights. The discussion also explores the ICJ’s advisory opinion on UN privileges during conflicts, stressing the erosion of international legal norms amidst rising tensions, particularly concerning Venezuela.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
High Seas Strikes Lack Lawful Basis
- The US strikes on suspected drug boats lack a lawful basis under international law, according to Oona Hathaway and Marko Milanovic.
- They categorize the killings as extrajudicial and say self-defense and IHL justifications do not hold here.
Self-Defense Claim Collapses
- Self-defense fails because there was no armed attack and drug trafficking does not qualify as an armed attack under the UN Charter.
- The correct legal framework is human rights law, making the strikes violations of the right to life.
Danger Of Indirect Harm Justifications
- The administration's chain of inference that boat strikes prevent eventual US deaths is extraordinarily indirect and dangerous.
- Accepting such indirect harms would allow virtually any transnational harm to justify force.