EJIL:The Podcast! Episode 14 – “From Russia With War”

Written by

In this episode Philippa Webb, Marko Milanovic and I are joined by Rebecca Barber (Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect) and Mike Becker (Trinity College Dublin) to examine various aspects of Russia’s war on Ukraine. The discussion begins with an evaluation of Russia’s legal justification for invading Ukraine, moving to an analysis of the responses to Russia’s aggression by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. We then turn to the proceedings brought by Ukraine against Russia before the International Court of Justice pursuant to the Genocide Convention, the investigation initiated by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the commission of inquiry created by the Human Rights Council, and the pros and cons of an initiative to set up a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression.

Please subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or TuneIn. It is also available on several other platforms as well, and through aggregator apps on your phone or tablet. We would appreciate listeners leaving a rating or review on the platform of their choice, as this will help promote the podcast.

For posts on various legal issues related to the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, see here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed


Milan Lipovsky says

March 7, 2022

Dear everyone,
thank you for the excellent episode. I have one more issue that could be raised. The crime of aggression is not necessarily limited to agents of states endowed with personal immunities. Disregarding of how it particularly is in Russian domestic law, would you agree that (assuming there is universal jurisdiction over the crime of aggresion, or at least crimes against peace) states can domestically prosecute agents of another state that participated in the aggresion/aggresive war against it who were not endowed with personal immunities but were still in a position to effectively control/direct political/military acts of the aggressive state?
Thank you.