Nehal Bhuta & Megan Donaldson

We see today flagrant breaches of the prohibitions on the threat or use of force, but also renewed pressure and scrutiny on a related but broader prohibition, the prohibition of intervention, forcible or otherwise. In some ways, it is this broader norm of non-intervention which presents the most deep-seated puzzles in international law and international politics. In a world of profound interdependence, when should states butt out of other states' business? Nehal Bhuta (Edinburgh) and Megan Donaldson (UCL) are joined by Marco Roscini (University of Westminster) and Frédéric Mégret (McGill University) to explore the past, present and future of this norm.

Scholarship referred to in the episode includes Marco Roscini, International Law and the Principle of Non-Intervention (2024); and Frédéric Mégret, Interference in Sovereign Affairs and the Discursive Economy of International Law (2025).

There were gasps in the courtroom when the ICJ delivered its advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change on 23 July 2025. In this episode, Margaret Young (Melbourne Law School), Phoebe Okowa (Queen Mary University of London, member of the International Law Commission) and Lavanya Rajamani (Oxford) explore how, with its robust and at times radical reasoning, the Court has delivered a truly significant moment for international law.

Scholarship referred to in the episode includes Phoebe N. Okowa, State Responsibility for Transboundary Air Pollution in International Law (2000); Lavanya Rajamani, ‘Interpreting the Paris Agreement in its Normative Environment’ (2024) 77 Current Legal Problems 167; Margaret A. Young, ‘Climate Change and Law: A Global Challenge for Legal Education’ (2021) 40 University of Queensland Law Journal 351; and Margaret A. Young, ‘Fragmentation’ in Lavanya Rajamani and Jacqueline Peel (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (2021) 85.

In this episode, Dapo Akande, Marko Milanovic and Philippa Webb are joined by Tom Dannenbaum to discuss two sets of issues. First, the legality of the use of force by Israel and the United States against Iran, and specifically its nuclear programme, from the standpoint of the jus ad bellum. The discussion turns around the possible justifications that Israel can give for its use of force, including the notion of stopping an imminent armed attack by Iran. Second, the recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the interstate case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, which deals with various aspects of the war in Ukraine, including the downing of the MH17. In particular, the contributors analyze the Court’s approach to extraterritorial jurisdiction and to the network of relationships between the European Convention, international humanitarian law and the jus ad bellum.