In the latest episode of JIB/JAB-The Laws of War Podcast, I have a cross-posted episode in which I am the guest of Jonathan Hafetz on his Law and Film Podcast to discuss the film Eye in the Sky. It is a 2015 film likely known to most JIB/JAB listeners, about a joint British and American drone strike against al-Shabaab terrorists in Kenya, and which intelligently and engagingly explores the legal, ethical, philosophical, political, and strategic issues raised by the operation. We not only examine the film’s treatment of the legal issues implicated, including whether IHL should apply at all, and how the principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality, and precautions in attack are illustrated in the film, but we also explore the relationship between these principles and some of the ethical and strategic aspects of the decision-making in the film. We round out the conversation with a discussion of some other engaging films that similarly explore law in the context of armed conflict. I very much enjoyed the conversation!
use of force
JIB/JAB-The Laws of War Podcast Back On-Line
It was good to get JIB/JAB-The Laws of War Podcast back on-line after an almost 7 month hiatus! Started the new season with a fantastic new episode on the issues of sieges, the war crime of starvation, and the siege of Gaza, with Tom Dannenbaum of the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University. The podcast has now been listened to almost 44,000 times in over 120 countries, so it feels like it is worth continuing, notwithstanding how much work it is!
Speaking to the CBC on the Gaza Conflict
I was pleased that the media is reaching out to international law scholars to get explanations of the legal issues raised by the conflict in Gaza, and was happy to speak with the CBC’s Canada Tonight show on the topic despite how fraught the issues are, but I found it difficult to provide the necessary nuance or really explain the complexity of any of these issues in the short time provided. It is pity that there is not sufficient time to lay out the issues in a little more depth and sophistication. Some other media, such as Ali Velshi’s spot on MSNBC, have taken a little more time with experts to explain some of these issues more fully. It is important for the public to understand these issues better.
Canada’s ‘Royal Prerogative’ Allows it to Wage War Without Parliamentary Approval
(Published in The Conversation, Oct. 24, 2022).
Questions are being raised again about how the Canadian government makes decisions to use force or participate in armed conflicts, prompted by reports that special forces units of the Canadian Armed Forces were operating on the ground in Ukraine.
While ostensibly deployed strictly for “training purposes,” such involvement can lead to more direct engagement in an armed conflict.
The decision to engage in armed conflict is one of the most consequential decisions a government can make. Who is involved in the decision-making, and what conditions or principles govern that process? Even more importantly, how should these decisions be made?
As a recent report suggests, the Ukrainian deployment has rekindled interest in these questions on Parliament Hill. But there should be a broader public discussion and debate.
Most Canadians would be surprised to learn that the prime minister and the cabinet have a far more unfettered power under the so-called royal prerogative to take the country to war than most other western democracies.
Early limits on war-waging powers
The modern idea that the power of the executive branch to wage war should be limited can be traced back at least as far as the Glorious Revolution in 1688, when English parliament placed constraints on the king’s ability to raise and maintain an army.