How Can the U.S. Address Political Violence and Threats?

Earlier this month, a SpaceX mission called Polaris Dawn launched four civilians into outer space. The crew completed the first ever “commercial spacewalk” while floating more than 800 miles above the Earth’s surface. But private companies aren’t the only ones interested in exploring the stars. Militaries are increasingly using space for a comparative advantage, from Russia’s plans to place a nuclear weapon into orbit to China’s development of anti-satellite weapons for the final frontier. And while these “new space races” are full of emerging technology, the law that governs outer space is decades old and incomplete. Much of it was developed in the 1960s and 70s. It remains murky and the legal guardrails, where they exist, are largely untested. Recently, experts from academia, industry, and government have published the Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and Operations. The Manual is the first comprehensive and detailed articulation of how international law applies to military operations in outer space.  What motivated the project of drafting the Manual, and how was it developed? How might it benefit the future development of space law and where do gaps remain? Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman. Joining the show to discuss the Woomera Manual are two of its editors, Jack Beard and David Koplow. Jack is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Space, Cyber, and National Security Law Program at the University of Nebraska College of Law. David is the Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center where he specializes in public international law and national security law. Show Notes: Jack M. BeardDavid A. KoplowTess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Paras Shah (@pshah518)David’s Just Security article “In the Woomera Manual, International Law Meets Military Space Activities” The Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and OperationsJust Security’s Space coverageJust Security’s International Law coverageJust Security’s Law of Armed Conflict coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Next week, world leaders from nearly 150 nations will meet in New York for the annual high-level week during the United Nations General Assembly’s new session. Among the many topics for discussion will be the ongoing wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan, efforts to regulate artificial intelligence and get sustainable development back on track, and the role of the U.N. Security Council in international peace and security. The formal and informal meetings of the week will play out as many of the U.N.’s agencies and institutions – from the Security Council to the International Court of Justice – are under stress and scrutiny. What are the key trends to watch for? How might the upcoming U.S. presidential election shape the discussions and debate? Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger. Joining the show to unpack the key themes around this year’s U.N. General Assembly is Richard Gowan. Richard is the U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an organization providing independent analysis and advice on how to prevent, resolve or better manage conflict.Show Notes:  Richard Gowan (@RichardGowan1) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Richard’s Just Security article “Guide to the Formal and Informal Agendas at the 2024 UN General Assembly Summit”Just Security’s UNGA 79 coverage including expert analysis and resourcesJust Security’s U.N. Security Council coverageJust Security’s Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas war, and Sudan confect coverage   Just Security’s Summit of the Future coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

From gathering and analyzing information to battlefield operations, States are integrating AI into a range of military and intelligence operations. Gaza and Ukraine are battle labs for this new technology. But many questions remain about whether, and how, such advances should be regulated.  As political and military leaders, industry, academics, and civil society confront a rapidly changing world, how should they approach the role of AI in the military? This week, more than two thousand experts from over 90 countries gathered in Seoul, South Korea, for the second global summit on Responsible AI in the Military Domain (REAIM). The Summit focused on three themes: understanding the implications of AI on international peace and security; implementing responsible application of AI in the military domain; and envisioning the future governance of AI in the military domain.This is the Just Security Podcast. I’m your host, Paras Shah.Just Security Senior Fellow Brianna Rosen and Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman were among the participants at the REAIM Summit, chairing and speaking on several breakout sessions. Today, Brianna joins the show to share her key takeaways from the Summit, including on how it inform future efforts to build consensus and strengthen AI governance in the military domain. Show Notes: Brianna Rosen (@rosen_br)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Tobias Vestner and Simon Cleobury’s Just Security article “Putting the Second REAIM Summit into Context”Just Security’s Artificial Intelligence coverageJust Security’s Diplomacy coverageJust Security’s Military coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The situation in Israel and Palestine raises some of the most complex and contested issues in international law. In the past few years, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and a U.N.-backed Independent Commission of Inquiry have all addressed various legal dimensions of the conflict, including the status of Israel’s long-standing occupation of the Palestinian Territories and its conduct of hostilities in the Gaza Strip. Just how have those bodies ruled? What have they chosen to condemn as violations of community norms and what conduct has been silenced or omitted? And what does all of this mean in practice, both as a matter of international law, for third-party States, and for the people on the ground? Joining the show to unpack how international courts and institutions have addressed the situation in Palestine are Shahd Hammouri, Ardi Imseis, and Victor Kattan. Shahd is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Kent Law School, Ardi is an Associate Professor and the Academic Director of the International Law Programs at Queen’s University Law School, and Victor is an Assistant Professor in Public International Law at the University of Nottingham School of Law.Co-hosting this episode is Just Security Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf. Matiangai is the Nathan Patz Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Show Notes: Shahd Hammouri (@shahdhm)Ardi Imseis (@ArdiImseis)Victor Kattan (@VictorKattan)Matiangai V.S. Sirleaf (@matiangai)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Discussion timestamps: 1:49 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion “Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in The Occupied Palestinian Territory”43:10 International Court of Justice South Africa v. Israel case1:05 Independent Commission of Inquiry 1:38 International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s Request for Arrest WarrantsMatiangai’s Just Security article “We Charge Geocide: Redux” Just Security’s Israel and Palestine coverageJust Security’s International Court of Justice coverageJust Security’s International Criminal Court coverage  Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

From the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, political violence in the United States is on the minds of many around the country and around the world. As the 2024 election draws closer, now is a useful moment to reflect on the threats of political violence, to consider how other nations have dealt with similar risks, and to evaluate where government and civil institutions can improve. Joining the show to discuss the risks of political violence in the United States and what can be done to address them is Rachel Kleinfeld. Rachel is a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where she focuses on issues of conflict, governance, development, and security. Show Notes: Rachel Kleinfeld (@RachelKleinfeld)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Rachel’s Just Security article “Political Violence in the United States Is Rising – and It Might Be Up to Americans to Say ‘Enough!’”Just Security’s Democracy coverageJust Security’s Political Violence coverageJust Security’s Domestic Extremism coverageJust Security’s Rule of Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

At their core, the laws of war seek to preserve humanity in the most difficult conditions. As Dr. Cordula Droege, the chief legal officer and head of the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (or ICRC) recently wrote for Just Security, “Understood in simplest terms, the law of armed conflict acknowledges that both sides will inevitably kill, injure, detain, and destroy, but it prohibits them from dehumanizing their adversary.” She notes that “Altogether, IHL contains hundreds of rules that protect life, health, and human dignity. It is modest and imperfect – it seeks only to guarantee a modicum of humanity in situations where our humanity has already been largely compromised.” But across the world – from Gaza to Myanmar to Ukraine to Sudan – IHL is facing a moment of profound strain. Civilians are targeted. Cities are leveled. And, as Droege writes, “All too often today, the protective purpose of IHL is set aside and the rules are literally turned on their head: instead of being interpreted to protect civilians, the absence of clear violations are invoked to justify a level of death, injury and destruction that is precisely what IHL intended to avoid.” Are the laws of war inadequate? Why are some States choosing not to comply? What exactly is the problem with IHL? Dr. Droege join the show to discuss her article, “War and What We Make of the Law” with Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman, and Just Security Legal Editor and Podcast Host and Executive Producer, Paras Shah. Show Notes:  Cordula Droege (@CDroegeICRC) Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Cordula’s Just Security article “War and What We Make of the Law”Mary Wareham’s Just Security article “Lithuania Leaving Cluster Munition Ban Undermines Agreement, Threatens Crucial Norms” Just Security’s International Humanitarian Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

August this year marks 10 years since the shocking execution of American freelance journalist James Foley at the hands of ISIS amid the war in Syria in 2014. His videotaped decapitation was the first of a spree of ISIS beheadings, including several Americans, which ISIS often used as recruitment propaganda. Jim’s killing, almost two years after he had been captured, stunned the world. A month later, ISIS did the same to another American journalist, Time Magazine contributor Steven Joel Sotloff. A month later, an American aid worker, Peter Kassig, was killed in the same way. Another American aid worker, Kayla Mueller, was killed in 2015 while being held captive by ISIS. Jim’s mother, Diane Foley, has pushed through the horror of those years by establishing the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation in her son’s memory and pressing the U.S. government persistently over a decade to reform its approach to cases of American hostages held abroad. At the time, its policy, as she explains in a recent article published by Just Security, consisted of little more than a slogan: “The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.” Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger. On this episode, we’re privileged to have Jim Foley’s mother, Diane Foley, and Luke Hartig, a member of Just Security’s editorial board, who first met Diane when he was a senior director at the National Security Council working on hostage policy and she was advocating for changes in hostage policy. He serves on the Foley Foundation’s advisory board. Diane has been a driving force in reforming U.S. policy and practices on the handling of American hostages held abroad. Part of that campaign has been an annual research report that the foundation produces, entitled Bringing Americans Home. It collects and analyzes evidence-based data on hostages currently held in 16 countries to inform the American public, government officials, and lawmakers about how the U.S. government is doing and what else is needed to secure the release of U.S. hostages abroad and reduce the risks of capture in the first place. The latest edition was just released. Show Notes:  Diane M. Foley (@FoleyDi) Luke Hartig (@LukeHartig) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Diane’s Just Security article “Since James Foley’s Death, a `Moral Awakening’ in America on Hostages Held Abroad”James W. Foley Legacy FoundationJust Security's Hostages coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In November 2021, a teenager in rural Texas downloaded the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and quickly became obsessed. He began to research weapons from the game, including a military-grade assault rifle. The company that manufactures the weapon used Instagram to market it. The teenager spent hours on Instagram, using 20 different accounts to browse the app. He learned more about the gun, and saved every dollar he could to pre-order it. 23 minutes after he turned 18 years old, he purchased the weapon. A few days later, on May 24, 2022, the teenager walked into Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and used the gun to kill 19 fourth-graders and two teachers.  Now, two years after the massacre, the families of those killed are suing Instagram and Activision Blizzard, the company that publishes Call of Duty. The novel lawsuit faces many legal hurdles – among them is Section 230, a federal law which significantly shields social media companies from liability for third-party content posted on their platforms. How might this long shot lawsuit impact who can be held responsible for mass shootings? And what are its potential implications for Silicon Valley in other contexts?  Joining the show to discuss the case and its potential impact on legal efforts to hold social media companies liable through the court system is Paul Barrett.  Paul is the deputy director and senior research scholar at the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.Show Notes: Paul M. Barrett (@AuthorPMBarrett) Paras Shah (@pshah518)Paul’s Just Security article “Can Families of Mass Shooting Victims Hold Social Media Companies Responsible for Violence?”  Just Security’s Section 230 coverageJust Security’s Big Tech coverageJust Security’s Domestic Extremism coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This week, leaders from across the Euro-Atlantic region met in Washington, D.C., for the annual NATO Summit. The security pact turned 75 this year, and its 32 members are facing challenges on multiple fronts, from Russia’s continuing bombardment of Ukraine, now in its third year, to the growing relationship between Russia and China and NATO member Hungary’s outreach to both. And that’s not to mention issues such as the impacts of technology, especially artificial intelligence, and questions of how many allies are reaching the intended threshold for their own defense spending of at least 2% of GDP.And all of this comes amid the uncertainty of a looming U.S. election in which former President Donald Trump has signaled he would distance Washington’s support for the alliance, and amid President Joe Biden’s struggles to persuade supporters that he still has the physical and mental stamina – at age 81 – to serve another term. What are the key takeaways from the Summit and how might it influence security concerns on both sides of the Atlantic? Co-hosting today is Just Security’s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger, and joining the show to discuss this year’s NATO summit and unpack its implications is Ambassador Daniel Fried. During his 40 years in the Foreign Service, Ambassador Fried played a central role in implementing U.S. policy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. In several senior roles, including as Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Ambassador Fried helped craft the policy of NATO enlargement to Central European countries and NATO-Russia relations. Earlier, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. He is currently the Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, which co-hosted the annual NATO Public Forum with other think tanks on the sidelines of the summit.  Show Notes: Ambassador Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Ambassador Fried’s Just Security article “At the NATO Summit, Strategy and Politics in Play”  Just Security’s NATO coverageJust Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. United States, finding that former presidents have “absolute immunity” for certain “official acts” taken while in office. The decision is a potentially sweeping expansion of presidential power and raises many questions, such as how to separate “official” and “unofficial” conduct in practice, and how it will impact the prosecutions against former President Donald Trump.  What are the opinion’s key takeaways? How might Special Counsel Jack Smith respond to the decision? Joining the show to unpack the Court’s landmark ruling, and what it means for presidential power and democracy, are leading legal experts Marty Lederman, Mary McCord, and Steve Vladeck. Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, co-hosted the discussion. Marty previously served in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel and is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Mary is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and is a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She previously had a long career at the Department of Justice, as a federal prosecutor and later in leadership of the National Security Division. Steve is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and he covers the Supreme Court both for CNN and through his Substack newsletter, “One First.” Marty, Mary, and Steve are all Editors at Just Security.  Show Notes: Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman)Mary B. McCordSteve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck)Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Just Security’s Trump Trials coverageJust Security’s Supreme Court coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)