EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 36: The Scourge of War
Jul 25, 2025
Tom Dannenbaum, a Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, delves into the legality of military action by Israel and the US against Iran. He discusses the complexities of justifying self-defense in international law, particularly regarding imminent threats. The conversation also covers recent ECHR rulings related to Ukraine, focusing on human rights violations and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Dannenbaum emphasizes the need for accountability in conflicts and explores legal remedies for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Use Of Force Requires Clear Justification
- Any use of force is unlawful unless a legal justification exists under the UN Charter or other norms.
- Israel advanced multiple overlapping justifications, which signals weakness rather than strength.
Imminence Is The Key Battleground
- Anticipatory self-defense requires imminence, but scholars split on what imminence means.
- One view limits imminence to immediate temporal threats, the other broadens it to intent and last window necessity.
Facts Must Support Preventive Strike Claims
- Evidence must show both weaponization and intent to use it to justify preventive strikes.
- Marko argued the available intelligence did not objectively demonstrate Iran had decided to build and use a nuclear weapon against Israel.