The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,

become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com

slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath.

The application of these principles, the rules of IHL, are squishy.

And what that results in is a tolerance within IHL for a significant amount of civilian harm.

It's the Lawfair Podcast.

I'm Lawfair General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R Anderson with Lawfare Executive

at her Natalie Orpet and Gilmore Rona Professor of Practice at Cortoso Law.

To the extent you can decide after the fact that the attack, for example,

was not sufficiently discriminate or was out of proportion

or whatever.

If the intelligence that leads to that conclusion was not available at the time, then it's not a violation of IHL.

Today, we're discussing their new peace for lawfare, analyzing whether a state that complies with the law of armed

conflict may nonetheless commit genocide, a complex legal question recently brought to the

fore by proceedings over Israel's conduct of the Gaza War before the International Court of Justice.

Good board, Natalie, you guys have written for lawfare a really, really interesting piece

wrestling with a big unknown that kind of is hanging over some of the big legal discussions happening in relation to the conflict in Gaza and particularly in part the ICJ proceedings being brought under the in relation to the genocide

convention.

It is a pretty technical conversation and we're going to spend some time kind of laying a foundation

so listeners can catch up and then digging into some of these technical points and distinctions about some of the big questions that you all pull out I think is really fascinating and really lend some perspective to some of these conversations we're hearing about these

legal issues.

...