EJIL: The Podcast!

Which author of a legal monograph has not had that frustrating feeling -- Why is my book not getting reviewed (and his or her book is...!)? And yet, in one of the many exquisite paradoxes of academic life, all Book Review editors of legal journals will attest to the difficulty of getting colleagues to accept to do a book review. 'I have to read that book carefully (i.e. going beyond the index and checking if I am cited and whether the engagement with my work is ok) and then write a couple of pages which count for nothing in the current lamentable state of quantitative academic appointments and promotions? Thank you but no thank you is the usual reply. We want our books reviewed but we don't like reviewing books. Or as readers of legal book reviews -- have you ever had the frustrating feeling of 'I want to read about the book and this reviewer is just using it to inflict on us his own thoughts and ideas'. Or the opposite -- if I want to read a description of the book I can go to the publisher's website (or the author's homepage...). Why is this review so bland and lacking in critical bite? These are just some of the issues that Cait Storr, Fuad Zarbiyev, EJIL book review editor Christian Tams and EJIL editors in Chief Sarah Nouwen and Joseph Weiler discuss in this EJIL Live! The podcast accompanies issue 31.4 which contains a 'Bumper' Book Review section. At the end of the podcast, plans for another EJIL innovation are revealed…

In this new series, 'Reckonings with Europe: Pasts and Present', Surabhi Ranganathan and Megan Donaldson host conversations about enduring legacies of empire, capitalism, and racism in international law and the legal academy. Joined by Matthew Smith, Mezna Qato, and Rahul Rao, they open the series with a discussion about statues, less tangible legacies woven into institutions, and the place of law in struggles about pasts and futures.

In this podcast, EJIL editor Sarah Nouwen interviews Laurence Helfer and Erik Voeten about their article “Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?”, published in EJIL issue 31(3). What does it mean to “walk back human rights”? One day one has a human right and the next day no longer? And how does one assess whether human rights are being walked back? But also: how does one keep a single voice in a co-authored text?

This episode examines the effects of the four years of the Trump Administration on international law. Dapo Akande is joined by Joseph Weiler, Neha Jain and Chimene Keitner. In their conversation, they explore the impact of the last four years on the future of multilateralism. They discuss the impact of Trump policies on international institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court. Did those policies simply expose weaknesses in those institutions? How might those weaknesses be remedied, and how will the relationship between those institutions and the US develop over the course of the new Biden administration?

In this episode Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, Sarah Nouwen and Philippa Webb analyse the Internal Market Bill currently pending before the UK Parliament, which the UK government’s own legal officers admit breaches international law by reneging on parts of the Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union and the Northern Ireland Protocol thereto that the UK had freely entered into less than a year ago. The team discuss why the UK government has put this Bill forward, how it is fairly unique for a state to admit to breaking international law before actually doing so, and why no international legal argument would work to justify this course of action. The team also discuss whether the concept of the rule of law should be bifurcated between the domestic and the international spheres, and what the role of governmental legal advisors should be in such situations.

The International Criminal Court has for a long time been criticised for exclusively focusing on Africa, as opposed to investigating situations in which powerful western states are heavily involved or have strong interests. In the first part of this podcast Kamari Clarke joins Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, Sarah Nouwen and Philippa Webb to discuss whether black lives matter before the ICC and whether it can deal with structural injustice. The second part of the podcast discusses some of the political and legal challenges that have arisen when the Court goes after nationals of states not party to its Statute. The focus is on the recent US sanctions against the Court in response to the investigation into the situation in Afghanistan and whether the ICC is able to determine the territorial boundaries of Palestine.

With cyberattacks against the health care sector on the rise, this episode focuses on international law and cyber operations, especially in the context of the fight against COVID-19. For this discussion, Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, & Sarah Nouwen are joined by Harriet Moynihan (Chatham House), and Tilman Rodenhäuser (International Committee of the Red Cross). They consider whether international law imposes obligations on states to refrain from such attacks having effect in other states. They also examine the obligations, under international human rights law and other bodies of law, to take positive action to prevent such attacks by non-state actors.

Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, Sarah Nouwen and Philippa Webb are joined by Gian Luca Burci, former Legal Counsel of the World Health Organization, to discuss international health law and pandemics. They discuss the obligations arising under the WHO's International Health Regulations, as well as various attempts to hold states and organizations (China, the US, the WHO) accountable in a variety of domestic and international courts.Moving from the virus to immunity, the final segment discusses a recent English case that raises a difficult tension between the obligations to protect human rights and to accord diplomatic immunity. 

Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic, Sarah Nouwen and Philippa Webb discuss the compatibility with international human rights law of the measures taken by states in the fight against the corona virus. Do states have a duty to cooperate in tackling the virus? Should they derogate from rights provided for in human rights treaties or are those rights flexible enough to permit the measures being taken? What measures can be taken to combat misinformation relating to the virus? They end with one of the international law issues of the day not receiving attention because of the virus - the indictment by the United States of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.