0:01

Grey's Anatomy, the most iconic binge-worthy

0:03

drama is back, along with answers

0:06

to the biggest cliffhangers. Will Teddy

0:08

survive? Will Joe and Link finally

0:11

find happiness together? Meredith returns along

0:13

with fan faves like Arizona. You

0:15

can now stream every episode of

0:18

Grey's Ever on Hulu and new

0:20

episodes next day. Watch new episodes

0:23

of Grey's Anatomy Thursdays at 9-8c

0:25

on ABC and stream on Hulu.

0:31

This episode is brought to you by JLL. This episode

0:33

is brought to you by JLL. Get

0:35

an insider view into the world

0:37

of commercial real estate with JLL's

0:39

podcast, Trends and Insights, the Future

0:41

of Commercial Real Estate. Whether you're

0:43

curious about making cities more sustainable,

0:45

the evolution of office space, or

0:47

AI opportunities, this podcast will help

0:49

keep you a step ahead. Tune

0:51

in for candid conversations with business

0:53

leaders about the biggest trends impacting

0:55

how we live, work, and play.

0:57

Subscribe to Trends and Insights now

0:59

at jll.com slash podcast. Does Monday at

1:01

the office feel like a storm? Does money at the office feel

1:03

like a storm? Not with Microsoft Copilot.

1:06

That feeling when copilot gets everyone

1:08

up to speed instantly, it sunny

1:10

again when Copilot simplifies complex data

1:12

so you're team's can act that

1:14

sun's shining on a beach. And

1:17

when copilot uncovers hidden insights your

1:19

on that beach. With your people

1:21

and do find buried treasure. That

1:24

Microsoft Copilot Learn more

1:27

at microsoft.com/ A I for all.

1:29

Welcome to the New Books Network. Hello

1:34

everybody, and welcome back to New Books in Law,

1:36

a podcast channel on the New Books Network. I'm

1:38

your host, Alex Batesmith. And today

1:41

I'm delighted to be talking to

1:43

Dr. Calica Mater about her recent

1:46

book, Strategic Litigation and Corporate Complicity

1:48

in Crimes Under International Law, a

1:50

Twirl Analysis. Calica

1:52

is a postdoctoral researcher and

1:54

lecturer at Hamburg University in

1:56

Berlin, having completed her PhD at

1:58

the University of Berlin. University of Hamburg in

2:01

2022 on strategic litigation and

2:03

corporate complicity, developing her thesis into the

2:05

book that we're going to be discussing

2:07

today. She's worked at or

2:10

studied in a huge range of international and

2:12

human rights organisations, including

2:14

the European Centre for Constitutional and

2:16

Human Rights in Berlin, Geneva Corps

2:19

and Geneva, the International Law Commission

2:21

at the United Nations, to name

2:23

a few, and she's also a

2:25

qualified lawyer in her native India.

2:27

Her research interests include human rights

2:29

law, international criminal law, postcolonial theory

2:31

and third world approaches to international

2:33

law, otherwise known as trial, some

2:35

of which we'll be touching upon

2:38

in today's podcast. Kalika,

2:40

welcome to New Books in Law. Thank

2:43

you, Alex. Thank you for having me. So,

2:45

Kalika, I've given a very brief biography, but I

2:47

wonder if you could begin by telling us a

2:50

little more about your journey into

2:52

academia and to researching the area that

2:54

led you to writing the book. Yes,

2:57

of course, but I'm afraid I

3:00

don't have a very profound answer to that

3:02

one. I mean, as

3:05

far as I can remember, or at least when

3:07

I was doing my Masters, as you

3:09

said already, in my introduction, I

3:12

was in Geneva when I did my L11. There

3:14

was something that was always in the back of

3:16

my mind that I wanted to do a PhD

3:19

and just didn't feel like I

3:21

was done with my research, learning,

3:23

academic journey, especially because that's when

3:25

I really got into international law

3:27

and just in all its complexity,

3:29

I was engaging with it and

3:32

wanted to sort of continue doing that. But at the

3:34

same time, I didn't want to just go into a

3:36

PhD without ever having stepped out of

3:38

the university. So,

3:41

yeah, I took up an assignment

3:43

at Myanmar, did a traineeship in

3:45

Berlin and just sort of had

3:48

this CSO in civil society, sort

3:50

of an exposure to international

3:52

law. And I mean, although

3:55

that was great, but at the same time,

3:57

that also kind of reiterated

3:59

this. need for

4:01

time and space to

4:04

engage with international law more deeply. And

4:07

think of these questions. And academia is

4:09

one thing that really allows you this

4:11

luxury to be able to,

4:13

without this urgent deadline that

4:15

one faces as a practitioner,

4:17

to just sit back and be able

4:20

to look at the bigger picture. And

4:23

that's what actually got me to doing a PhD

4:27

and then writing this book. So

4:30

why was it that you came to write

4:32

your book? Let's get straight to it. What

4:35

was the guiding motivation for this book? Yeah,

4:38

I mean, as you will see, I mean,

4:40

of course, the title suggests it's a long

4:42

one. It's a various aspect put together, various

4:44

elements, sort of pieces of a puzzle put

4:47

together in trying to sort of make sense

4:49

of the bigger picture, if one could call

4:51

it. But interestingly,

4:54

I arrived at all of these

4:57

different pieces differently from

4:59

different directions. So it

5:01

started out with, oh, I want to

5:03

look at the absence of corporate complicity

5:06

in international crimes. That was

5:08

something that really triggered

5:10

my interest. But

5:12

that's also, I have to say, practically

5:14

speaking, it's a topic that's been dealt

5:17

with enough in scholarship. Then

5:19

strategic litigation was something, I mean,

5:21

I had worked with ECCHR,

5:25

which I also talk about in the book,

5:27

the European Center for Constitution and Human Rights

5:29

in Berlin. That

5:31

does strategic litigation. And my doctoral

5:34

supervisor, Florian Yespega in Hamburg, University

5:36

of Hamburg, was running a project

5:39

on strategic litigation, sort of looking

5:41

at it more academically. So it

5:43

made sense to sort of look

5:46

at corporate complicity through this angle

5:49

of practitioners who are trying to

5:51

sort of push for corporate complicity,

5:53

but also in a way that

5:55

they are more politically minded and

5:58

they're looking and they're case. is

6:00

a sort of, let's say, bigger than the

6:02

sum of their paths. They were

6:04

going for something broader, bigger than just

6:06

the case itself. And

6:09

12 was actually something that happened

6:12

in the end, or in throughout,

6:14

while I was on this journey. And

6:18

it was the sort of last addition to

6:20

the puzzle because, and

6:22

I'm sure we'll talk about it in greater detail

6:24

when we get to the substance. But it's

6:27

probably, it was when I realized,

6:31

or also speaks of the journey

6:33

I went through as a scholar and personally,

6:35

like I was asking these questions for a

6:37

reason, because there was

6:40

certain, and then I came across

6:42

the Twill scholarship and the scholars

6:44

were asking the same questions. Have

6:46

these shared frustrations in the

6:48

international law, that the promises

6:50

it makes and the failures

6:53

and delivering those promises. And

6:56

yet at the same time, there was this sort

6:58

of insistence on

7:00

continued engagement with international law, which really

7:03

all of that spoke to me and sort of

7:05

felt like, oh, this is my, that's why I

7:07

was also looking at these questions. And

7:09

that sort of just fit well. And

7:12

I was, oh, I had this aha moment. And

7:14

I clearly remember that day still when

7:16

I was, I was like, yeah, that makes

7:19

sense. So that's how I guess all of

7:21

these pieces came together. And yeah,

7:24

and I tried to sort of engage

7:26

with all of them separately while trying

7:28

to make a larger sort of argument

7:30

on what to do with, how to

7:33

engage with international criminal law, despite knowing

7:35

that it's flawed and biased, perhaps. Great.

7:38

I guess I'm aware that perhaps we should maybe

7:41

not assume that all our listeners

7:43

are subject specialists in today's topic.

7:46

So maybe we can start

7:48

to define our terms before we get into the

7:50

substance of the book. So what do

7:52

we mean when we talk about international criminal law,

7:54

first of all? Absolutely.

7:57

So international criminal law basically is a

7:59

sub- discipline of public

8:01

international law that deals with

8:04

individual criminal responsibility of

8:06

people who have

8:10

engaged with or involved in

8:12

international crimes. So core crimes

8:14

is for basically war crimes,

8:16

crimes against humanity, genocide

8:19

and crime of aggression now. And all

8:21

of this is sort of codified in the

8:23

Rome Statute as we know it and the

8:25

International Criminal Court sort of is the

8:28

centerpiece of this discipline.

8:31

It's important to also underline that that's not

8:33

the only place where international criminal law is

8:35

practiced. Ideally,

8:38

actually the primary site of implementation

8:41

of international criminal law should be

8:43

domestic courts and that's mainly

8:45

where what

8:47

I look at in the book. Okay, great.

8:50

So that's the first term I wanted to

8:52

discuss and define. And the second two really

8:54

I guess are what do we mean when

8:56

we talk about strategic litigation on

8:59

behalf of non-state actors? So could

9:01

you perhaps define those for us?

9:03

Absolutely. And I think this is

9:05

also important not just for non-subject

9:08

specific listeners. It's something of a

9:10

buzzword really in the practice of

9:13

international law and especially international human

9:15

rights law and criminal law. But

9:19

what I mean by strategic litigation really

9:21

is that legal

9:23

interventions by non-state actors that

9:25

are being made with the

9:28

understanding that

9:30

there's structural problems in the law

9:32

and they sort of

9:34

aim to address those problems. So

9:36

there's a strategic objective to each of

9:38

those legal interventions and they usually

9:41

tend to be sort of long-term,

9:43

farsighted, sort of thinking

9:45

outside of the box kind of litigation

9:48

or legal interventions. So what

9:51

really is basically it's just

9:54

not just a repair exercise or

9:56

not just a seeking of increased

9:58

implementation of a law. instance,

10:00

in this case, if we're talking about

10:02

the international crimes, it's one thing to

10:04

say, oh, crimes have occurred, there's human

10:06

large scale human rights violations, we need

10:08

better implementation of the

10:10

law here. But it also looks at

10:12

the socio political context in which these

10:15

crimes occur, who are the real actors,

10:17

who would perhaps be otherwise held unaccountable,

10:19

if the politics of it is considered,

10:21

let's challenge those sort of double standards

10:24

and those hidden sort of political

10:26

social context. And that's what I mean

10:28

by strategic litigation. And

10:31

of course, sounds obvious,

10:33

but non state actors are

10:37

civil society organisations. Yeah. And

10:42

thirdly, and finally, really, I wanted to ask

10:44

us to ask you to reflect on what

10:47

we mean by this concept of twale

10:49

third world approaches to international law or

10:52

international criminal law. So tell us a

10:54

bit about that, because it's quite contested

10:56

term in a way. Absolutely.

10:58

I mean, the word it

11:00

contains third world and to anybody

11:03

who's not plugged into it, that

11:05

would sort of enough to raise

11:08

eyebrows for using that word

11:10

in itself. But I mean, let's

11:12

say sort of it has been

11:14

appropriated or taken back. So it's

11:17

I would say simply stated it's

11:19

twale is basically a scholarly movement

11:22

of with an explicit political

11:25

mission that seeks

11:27

a more just a more

11:30

egalitarian global legal order or

11:33

international law. It critiques

11:35

international law from the vantage point

11:37

of in

11:41

quotes, third world and global south,

11:44

which again, it's not sort

11:49

of not just a geographic label, it's

11:51

a political label, and which is marked

11:53

by sort of my basically we

11:55

are saying what when you talk

11:57

about third world peoples, you're talking about the most marginalized.

12:00

who are living

12:02

the reality of colonialism

12:06

and all other sort of intersecting reason

12:10

which domination takes place. And

12:13

yeah, so basically what

12:15

we'll argue is that international

12:18

law is structurally biased towards

12:20

the West. The West as in,

12:25

let's say Europe and the former colonizers and

12:28

the settler colonies. If I can

12:30

be so explicit and against

12:32

and it's biased towards the

12:34

West and against the third world and

12:36

does sort of lacks legitimacy to call

12:38

itself a truly global

12:41

legal order. And so

12:43

this is what sort of the underlying assumption

12:45

with which Twale scholarship engages with

12:48

various aspects of public international law.

12:51

And I think another important distinction that

12:53

needs to be made when we are talking

12:55

about Twale, it's the distinction

12:57

between third world states versus

13:00

third world peoples. That's also something that

13:02

often gets sort of missed. It's

13:05

an awesome gets missed and mistaken

13:07

because you see a lot of

13:10

rhetoric or challenging of international

13:12

law on account of third

13:14

world states, which in most

13:16

cases, I'm not always, but in some

13:18

cases, it is perhaps

13:21

coming from the vested interest of

13:25

the political sort of facts. And

13:31

so it is important to underline that

13:33

the scholarship really is talking about the

13:35

interest of third world peoples and those interests

13:38

between the states and people who do not

13:40

necessarily align in

13:43

all cases. So what, and then coming to

13:46

sort of your last part of the question,

13:48

like what does third world approaches to international

13:50

criminal law mean and

13:53

specifically how is

13:55

it important in this context? And

13:57

that's what I call in the book like Twinkle.

14:00

the World Approaches to National Criminal Law. It's

14:04

a very diverse sort of multifaceted

14:06

scholarship. And in whatever

14:08

I've said already, it's also quite a bit

14:10

of a simplification that's gone on. And I'm

14:12

sure there are three lists who wouldn't probably

14:14

agree with every word that I've said, which

14:17

is, I guess, the robustness, adds

14:19

to the robustness of the movement, well,

14:22

scholarly movement, but it's

14:25

the best part about it as well. There's no

14:27

sort of clear hierarchy or

14:29

clear sort of source

14:32

definitions that we are working with. So

14:34

that's why I think for international criminal

14:36

law, what I think are

14:38

four sort of key concerns

14:41

of Tuil, while when they're

14:43

engaging with international criminal law, one

14:46

is that it engages in a

14:48

reform-based critique. So while

14:51

it starts with this

14:53

underlying assumption that

14:56

ICL or international criminal law may

14:58

be biased, it doesn't just stop

15:00

there, it engages with it. It critiques

15:02

it with the goal of

15:05

reforming it. And

15:08

secondly, sort of it works

15:10

on relativizing universality. I would

15:12

say that it emphasizes on

15:14

pluralism and not just a

15:16

very sort of neurocentric view of that's what

15:19

the law is. And this is speaking for

15:21

the whole world and there's no space of

15:23

sort of plural perspectives. And

15:25

it can, same terms and concepts can

15:28

mean different things in different settings. And

15:30

thirdly, it sort of works towards deprivialgic

15:33

state, which again goes back to the

15:35

point that I was trying to make

15:37

in that distinction between the states and

15:39

peoples, like it challenges the privilege

15:42

of states as

15:46

sole lawmakers or

15:49

international law making authorities. And

15:52

finally, in particularly in this case, I think

15:55

it's important because it also tries to

15:57

address material inequality. And

15:59

in the world. world as such. Yeah. no

16:11

matter how big your business grows. And

16:13

they might even be able to help reduce shipping and

16:15

warehouse costs. So optimize and

16:17

keep up your momentum for growth

16:19

with ShipStation. Sign up for

16:21

your free 60-day trial now at shipstation.com

16:23

and use the code POD. with

16:27

the code POD. Excellent.

16:30

That's an incredibly comprehensive setting

16:33

of the ground for the future

16:35

of our discussion. So I guess

16:37

that what I wanted to start off with

16:39

really was what you describe

16:41

in your introduction as the paradox

16:44

of contradictory contentions that is contained

16:46

within international criminal law. Because on

16:48

the one hand, you have international

16:51

criminal law built

16:53

on racial, imperial,

16:55

economic, gender domination.

16:58

But on the other, it can also be as

17:01

you put it a platform for counter

17:03

hegemonic claims. So it's both

17:05

the source of the of

17:08

the domination. And it's also

17:10

potentially a platform

17:12

to fight against that domination. Can you

17:14

tell us a bit about those contradictions

17:16

and how you conceive of them through

17:18

your research in the book? I

17:20

think it's, it is

17:23

contradictory. And so that's also yeah, that's

17:26

basically the sort of overarching argument that

17:28

I'm also trying to convey with the

17:30

book that it's one has to keep

17:32

an eye towards both of both these

17:34

ends of the spectrum, while

17:37

engaging with it while there's the

17:39

critique of racial selectivity double

17:41

standards and its implementation of the

17:43

law or like neo colonialism

17:45

and whatnot. And all of that is fair

17:47

and valid. That's the starting point. But then

17:50

what do you do with that? Like

17:53

this? That's the next question? Like what do

17:55

you do? You realize and acknowledge that or

17:57

perhaps this is based on The

18:00

my mind to be a want and

18:02

have been due due. To stop and

18:04

using with it And that's where the real

18:06

question becomes a tenuous stop. Engaging with it

18:09

as can there be up on gender Be.

18:12

Even an engagement with such a

18:14

flawed. Frameworks that can be

18:16

truly a strategic in that sense

18:18

of can truly be a in

18:20

the interest of the code was

18:23

people's of let's say. And

18:25

that said, I argue that we have to realize

18:27

the. Importance of International criminal

18:29

law in today's global said

18:31

of order to be. Tax.

18:35

On that cannot be to last. And

18:37

a reason that disengagement does not

18:39

the only option that it does.

18:42

Give. You a language

18:44

to contest? Language to.

18:48

Offer solutions to talk and to

18:50

challenge and that's made the sort

18:52

of counter his demonic potential. Comes

18:54

in to the scene where you

18:56

can use the same framework that

18:59

of maybe by it but was

19:01

it a challenge to biases to

19:03

highlight injustices and to in some

19:05

ways time constraints. That have the

19:07

power own said that The and

19:10

that's. The. Tools that of

19:12

stands at I tried to delicately balanced

19:14

throughout the book. Is

19:17

you say in the introduction to

19:19

the I read Your Book is

19:21

to as you put it pushed

19:23

the critical discourse on International criminal

19:25

law by highlighting the different forms

19:27

of activism With indeed sonos to

19:29

justice framework and a particular you

19:32

want to look at how non

19:34

state actors, civil society actors attempt

19:36

to use international criminal law to

19:38

plug we described as the Accounting

19:40

accountability Cap As far as corporate

19:42

my policy for international crimes concerned

19:44

as and you've already described. To

19:46

to new previous answer how

19:49

the book is really a

19:51

and interaction of of three

19:53

parts. firstly that these trial

19:55

critiques of International criminal law

19:57

and secondly is that the

19:59

gap. The ability gap regarding

20:01

corporate com complicity in international

20:03

crimes and and thirdly is

20:06

how. Strategic. Litigation

20:08

informed by these twelve critiques is being

20:10

used to address the can't even see

20:12

Gap which you discuss saw the whole

20:15

of the Book of Activates. Now I

20:17

was gonna ask you to to to

20:19

to take each one of those in

20:22

turn but you've already discussed in full

20:24

detail. I think I'm sandy sufficient for

20:26

opposite pubs is today and the trial

20:29

critiques of an international law and that

20:31

that difficulties that that scholars and the

20:33

global affairs in the Third world politically

20:35

speaking conceive of. Our. Of in

20:38

Social from the last. Or perhaps

20:40

we can move them onto the

20:42

second aspects of the book which

20:44

is corporate accountability and out of

20:46

the tell a bit about the

20:48

history. Where does the idea come

20:51

from to find corporations. Accountable

20:53

for. Massive. International Crimes

20:56

for their crimes Against Humanity, war crimes

20:58

and such like. I

21:01

mean, I'm not the first person.

21:03

don't want complicity. Death is by

21:05

no means an end, and it's

21:07

highly discussed all topic, and as

21:09

a team that's a peasant both

21:12

I think it's quite important. From

21:14

little postcolonial historical perspective as well

21:16

since in go all the way

21:18

back at a colonial corporations. Over

21:21

the flag better on have to

21:23

sort of civilising mission. On

21:26

the on the often preceded by

21:28

balloon and states in the call

21:31

my thirties and in some cases

21:33

in anticipating controlled and exploited the

21:35

third thirty so far longer than

21:38

the states. And

21:40

a case in point being mm

21:42

something that I'm worth a million

21:44

in the East India Company and

21:47

the resulting sort of large scale

21:49

war crimes, but despite this historical

21:51

precedent else own corporations. Being. Involved

21:53

at actively or if not

21:55

committing than definitely an interest.

21:58

So fueling, lads. The

22:00

violence? More atrocity crimes. Oh

22:03

no. International Criminal Court Or.

22:05

Type Union has ever prosecuted a corporate

22:08

entity, and that's something that's often discussed,

22:10

even patently in the Rome Statute fame

22:12

book, if we could call it that.

22:15

And I'm and a year and

22:17

undiscussed more deeply in the book

22:20

of the how Nuremberg Trials were

22:22

an opportunity. To lead on that Final

22:24

Fantasy. Noom that. Trials with the

22:26

first an international trials.

22:29

On based on an international Clinton

22:31

people were prosecutor, individuals were held

22:33

responsible for last few moments. After

22:36

the Second World war and of this was

22:38

a great opportunity to lead on that foundation

22:41

and that was and that actually brought up

22:43

because one of the. Sort

22:46

of aims of those those trials was

22:48

also to sort of be made in

22:51

the bigger picture of what what went

22:53

into the war effort. And

22:55

a decent political patients one one

22:58

if the key pieces thing. that

23:01

will let ago and it was quite a

23:03

president and was one of the i like

23:05

it was apply and planned to ago that

23:08

the but for. Various practical

23:10

and of the reasons

23:12

it the not happen

23:14

and I'm. In later in

23:16

a good men even in the domestic set

23:18

of tries happened with. Sort of

23:20

because it wasn't politically convenient

23:22

if. One was looking at the. Reconstruction.

23:25

of Germany and and he building

23:27

after the war felix to go

23:29

after the most said have a

23:31

powerful corporations or if wasn't convenient.

23:34

Than that. sort of a missed opportunity

23:36

then, and everything some people have tried

23:38

it has come up. It was even

23:40

discussed earlier and Burrow. Into this

23:43

inclusion of corporate accountability was

23:45

discussed in Them Don't Computers.

23:47

Are indifferent of most comprehensive

23:49

manner, Read. At the French

23:51

made this proposal of including corporate

23:54

accountability which would be in addition.

23:56

To the individual responsibility and which I think of

23:58

them. And. The most com. The

24:02

but that wasn't included a threat

24:04

to that stupid specter of my

24:06

me i don't have the absence

24:08

of accountability gap and he was

24:10

already pointed out. Why do you

24:12

think it's a must to criminal

24:14

law find it so difficult to

24:16

hold corporations accountable. Yeah.

24:19

I did. The. Same

24:21

and say that. The.

24:24

City's emphasis on

24:26

individual criminal responsibility.

24:29

I think I'm. Really? Is

24:31

the key to this? Question

24:34

much. If

24:36

you ask me, I think it's exaggerated

24:38

this minute between individual. Integration and

24:40

cockpit from the responsibility and it

24:43

can be said of not. Not.

24:46

As mutually exclusive as it

24:48

would seem home so legally

24:50

I think it's possible. And.

24:53

then one questions like or seven so what's

24:55

the problem is that not the if they're

24:57

legal models and proposes out there were you

25:00

can question. But I mean the more set

25:02

of a formal. And exclusive reasons are like

25:04

oh it's hard to harmonize different need

25:06

assistance to this question they differently or

25:08

do come to lead a more out

25:10

of general understanding but I think even

25:13

though of not a things muscle coach

25:15

level of that's all that smoke. Doesn't.

25:18

But the I think on a domestic

25:20

level it's more a sort of agreeable

25:22

that there is a general principle of

25:25

international law that top of accountability corporations

25:27

can be how they got to the

25:29

federal crimes. Much of it's important to

25:31

understand that it's not. As

25:36

an international. What

25:39

those or com accountability for corporations

25:41

encompass He took little a new

25:43

book or just about collective vs

25:46

individual but organizational vs attribution or

25:48

method surf whole the incorporation accountable.

25:50

Oh and if you could talk

25:53

a little bit about asks. Oh

25:56

yeah, I think. i'm so

25:58

the book and generally also that

26:01

the poster they took in the book was actually

26:03

mirroring the practice. As I

26:05

started out looking at, oh, what's out there? How

26:07

are people trying to do this? How are people

26:09

trying to tackle this problem of cooperation

26:12

somehow being embroiled in international crime

26:14

or large-scale violence? And there's

26:17

all kinds of models and proposals and

26:19

attempts out there. And I think

26:21

that really is the answer to

26:23

that question. Attempts

26:27

have been made to hold corporations as

26:29

such, so corporate entities,

26:32

and the persons who are in charge of

26:35

the corporations went with

26:37

large-scale crimes to take place under

26:40

both criminal law framework, straightforward,

26:42

we are talking about

26:45

imprisonment and punishment and

26:47

guilt, but also in the

26:49

civil law framework, where you're mainly just looking

26:51

at a declaration or acknowledgement that these

26:53

crimes were committed, this corporation was involved, but

26:56

at the same time, the end result is

26:58

more sort of in the reparations or

27:00

the compensation lines. And

27:04

I think all of this encompasses how

27:07

corporations can be held accountable. And

27:09

again, restricting

27:11

ourselves to just one kind of accountability,

27:13

and it would be again,

27:15

I think misses the point really. So

27:17

that's what I also, I

27:19

take this broad notion of accountability

27:22

in, as you would see

27:24

in the book as well. I

27:27

think the best way to concretize this debate,

27:29

I mean, obviously we've been talking in

27:32

the theoretical, is to go to your

27:34

case studies, because you go into a

27:37

great deal of depth in three

27:39

particular cases. And I just wanted to discuss,

27:41

before we get into the individual cases, ask

27:44

you how you are lighted on

27:46

those particular cases, you talk about

27:49

seeing or researching 38 different

27:52

cases involving allegations

27:54

of corporate complicity, and

27:56

international Crime. So How do you divide them

27:58

up into different groups? And

28:00

what sort of. Major.

28:03

Categories did you? Did you identify?

28:06

I mean, this was the the

28:08

to kiss bit of my entire

28:10

set of research journey if I

28:12

could call it a bit. Took

28:14

me the long. As to how

28:16

do I sort of narrow it down

28:18

to one another of cost tactical accepted.

28:20

Also on all the time of languages

28:23

I know the evidence that I read

28:25

out the documents. I will have access

28:27

to information that's out there but also

28:30

I think these are would why these

28:32

see out. And feel

28:34

ripped off three.

28:38

At. A broad categories of I

28:40

saw in the. General.

28:43

Practice. So I've been, as you mentioned,

28:45

already cited a Kiss Mapping Act exercise.

28:48

Of all such. Legal

28:50

interventions, My non state actors trying

28:53

to silence corporations for their complicity.

28:55

And off the list that I

28:58

got there were fears that of

29:00

patterns. There was one as it

29:02

of the biggest stand was a.

29:05

Service. On. And

29:08

under the in and thought that

29:10

you'd have to says as with

29:12

in the United States, the second

29:14

one's or trials for business accountability

29:16

help them the transmits. Of this

29:18

context, just after a conflict.

29:21

In a meme meme, Latin

29:23

America and time lead them

29:25

to the Extraterritorial says read by

29:27

what I mean bags at

29:29

editorialists Read: Princeton's corporations in

29:31

Europe are being held accountable

29:33

for crimes that they committed

29:35

elsewhere against people. In. A

29:38

different country. But because ordered

29:40

a in and some of the european

29:42

country that's where the trials. Taking place

29:44

and these are more in the criminal law.

29:47

Strictest sense of. Shame.

29:51

And as of these three broadcom, broad

29:53

categories: Game. Came

29:55

up and then. I guess of it

29:57

was a lot more is that of practical. the

30:01

kind of act that I have access to. I

30:03

wasn't just relying on the

30:05

open source information. I was also

30:07

talking to people because in order

30:09

to really get to the strategy

30:12

element of strategic litigation, I

30:14

used to talk to the lawyers who were behind these

30:16

cases and what went

30:18

on in what was decision-making, like why

30:21

these corporations and why these

30:23

cases. So that, it also came

30:25

down to just a lot of like

30:27

tactical factors and why

30:29

I decided these case studies. And

30:31

you selected one case per topic.

30:35

Exactly, exactly. Let's go to

30:37

those. So the first case

30:40

was the role of the Centro

30:43

de Estudios Legales y Sociales,

30:46

the CELS, in

30:49

pursuing strategic litigation in the

30:51

form of corporate trials for

30:53

historical crimes. And particularly the

30:56

case involving allegations of direct

30:58

complicity of Ford Motors in

31:00

crimes against humanity during the last military

31:03

dictatorship in Argentina between 1976 and 1983. So

31:09

obviously that's a transitional

31:11

justice field. Tell

31:13

us a little bit about that

31:15

case, if you would, and particularly

31:17

the transitional justice dimension. That

31:20

case, I think, is

31:22

extremely interesting and CELS,

31:24

the organizations, the organizations

31:27

also extremely sort of, they

31:31

are a protagonist, really. Like they

31:33

have a reputation for

31:35

really driving

31:38

that transitional justice movement in Argentina

31:41

for decades. They

31:43

started out when the violations were taking

31:45

place during the dictatorship, when there's no

31:47

legal framework to seek sort

31:50

of justice for those violations. They were

31:52

just documenting. We'll see what

31:54

happens. And then over the years, the

31:57

governments changed one after the other.

32:00

they really tried pushing the legal

32:02

framework as much as possible. They

32:04

went to the Inter-American system. They

32:06

went, they leveraged everything they could

32:08

domestically. They came up with the

32:11

idea of truth trials, where if you can't

32:13

hold it, like that was to basically beat

32:16

the amnesty laws that were, or

32:18

find a loophole in the amnesty laws that

32:20

were in place. So you can't hold them accountable,

32:22

but you still cannot go to the court asking

32:24

them to establish truth, which groundbreaking.

32:27

And so it's very interesting

32:30

actor, which then finally, when the

32:32

sort of legal framework allowed them to

32:34

go for a seek account, but accountability

32:37

because the domestic law allows it and

32:39

the constitution sort of implements

32:41

international criminal law in the domestic

32:43

system, they went for a

32:45

court mission. And also, as I also discussed

32:48

in the book, it

32:51

came as an afterthought, like after

32:53

the event for the

32:55

military dictators for the longest time,

32:58

they had this realization that, hey,

33:00

we've been saying that this was not just a

33:02

military dictatorship, this was a civilian

33:04

military dictatorship, where corporations

33:06

were equally involved and it

33:09

fueling those crimes and it's

33:11

not actively sort of committing them. And

33:14

why I had been, I had gone after them.

33:16

And so that afterthought became

33:19

sort of led to

33:21

a concrete action points where they documented

33:23

and we really went looking

33:26

for evidence and that in

33:28

the transitional justice context, it's even

33:30

all the more important because we're talking about

33:32

historical crime. So right now, trials

33:35

are taking place for something that happened 40

33:37

years ago. In any case,

33:39

bringing trials against a large corporation and now

33:41

we are talking, in this case, we are

33:43

talking about the Ford, it's

33:45

extremely challenging in terms

33:48

of resources, in terms of just

33:50

the might that you're dealing with. But then

33:52

to add to that, you're also talking

33:54

about crimes that took place 40 years

33:56

ago. So all of that really made

33:59

it exemplary. I think it's

34:01

a very interesting example that

34:03

I had a lot of

34:05

fun engaging with. But

34:07

by the end, you

34:10

could say that, oh, that's a lot of factors

34:12

coming together. And that's just,

34:14

let's say, the stars aligned. Is

34:17

that an exceptional case? Or can this

34:19

be something that can be replicated? There

34:22

has been, I mean, it's a mixed response

34:24

to that question. There have been some developments

34:26

since there are trials that are taking place.

34:29

Hard to say if all of them will result into convictions

34:32

or accountability. But it's really more

34:34

than just about the conviction,

34:38

about the final end result. It's a

34:41

lot about the victims being present in

34:43

the courtroom. Finally, we heard that the

34:46

employees or the trade union

34:48

workers, employees of

34:50

these corporations, were just disappeared

34:52

just because of speaking up, just

34:56

because they were actively sort

34:58

of dissenting. And so it's a lot,

35:01

again, there's a lot of symbolic and expressive

35:03

sort of meaning to it. But

35:06

yeah, that's in brief,

35:08

I would stop there. That's

35:10

classic transitional justice, isn't it? So

35:12

transitional justice for our listeners, it's

35:14

all about dealing with the past.

35:17

How does a society come to

35:19

terms with either conflict

35:21

or a dictatorial regime?

35:23

And in Argentina, it was both

35:25

civil war and a dictatorial

35:28

regime. And how does

35:30

a people come to terms with

35:32

that? Do they put people on trial? Do they have

35:34

a truth commission? Do they

35:37

have economic reparations? And

35:40

as you identified, this idea

35:42

of the right to truth

35:44

was something that the civil

35:47

society organization, CELS, very

35:49

much manipulated or

35:53

used to get out what they wanted

35:55

from this strategic litigation. I

35:58

wonder if you could tell us a bit about the allegations. about

36:00

how those came to light and what happened in the

36:02

end to some of the Ford managers. And

36:06

this was quite recently as well. Yeah. So these,

36:08

I mean, it was quite present and people knew

36:12

that this happened. It wasn't a groundbreaking

36:16

discovery that corporations were involved.

36:18

But I think in 2016, 2015

36:20

is when the organization, CELDS

36:22

and other entities started producing the company.

36:24

And I think that's other

36:28

entities started really looking

36:30

into it in terms of what kind of evidence is

36:32

there. So the real, the

36:36

allegations were that the executives

36:38

of Ford Motors, they

36:40

ran detention center at the factory

36:44

during the dictatorship. And they

36:46

directly contributed to the enforced

36:48

disappearance of their employees

36:50

who were members of the trade union.

36:53

And they did explicitly

36:56

provided lists to the military that these

36:58

are the people who need to be

37:01

picked up. And not just that, but

37:03

also actively provided

37:05

material support to the

37:07

military in terms of like the

37:09

cars that there was in this one particular

37:11

model that Ford

37:13

was manufacturing those

37:16

days and was available to the military

37:18

that became really the symbol of the

37:20

military repression. The

37:23

people would just be scared looking at that car

37:25

on the streets that they were, this is going,

37:27

they're going to be abducted

37:30

immediately. So that was the extent

37:32

of involvement. But in this particular

37:34

case, we were only talking about

37:36

contributing or being compliant in the

37:39

enforced disappearance of the employees. And

37:41

I mean, of course,

37:43

as I said, this case was a

37:45

combination of very strong direct evidence. So

37:47

there were testimonies that were, that

37:51

the organizations were able to secure.

37:54

And the victims, and I mean, I should have

37:56

also highlighted it earlier, it's not just about

37:58

the civil society organization. also the

38:00

victims have been assistant over the decades

38:03

that this is something that needs to

38:05

be highlighted, which also played a huge

38:07

role in this trial. And

38:10

finally that resulted in three

38:13

convictions. So the

38:15

four people were charged and one

38:17

person died during the trial, but

38:19

three people were convicted for

38:22

the involvement in crimes against humanity. And this

38:24

happened in 2018. Yeah.

38:27

What do you think were

38:29

the practical implications of this

38:31

type of strategic litigation with

38:34

this particular result for the

38:36

people who might be

38:38

tempted to follow suit or for

38:41

third world interpretations of a

38:44

vint-sartial criminal or generally? I

38:46

mean, practical implications are many, I

38:49

think, the fact that historical

38:51

crimes can be held accountable, that

38:54

one can go to the courts and

38:56

that's something. And I mean,

38:59

of course, Argentine criminal law is

39:02

sort of more open to such claims of

39:04

corporate accountability and it's more open to that.

39:07

And the fact that it's

39:10

also important to underline the language that

39:12

was used. It was an international, like

39:14

they were being held accountable for

39:16

crimes against humanity. So it's not

39:19

just a case of torture. It's not

39:21

just a case of abduction. It

39:24

really underlines the gravity of what we

39:26

are talking about. It was a large

39:28

scale, widespread, systematic attack that the corporations

39:30

were trying. So that's something also

39:32

that really lays out like a roadmap

39:34

of the language that you're using in

39:37

a trial. It becomes extremely important

39:39

to also send

39:41

out a bigger message of involvement.

39:44

And of course, it speaks volumes

39:46

on the

39:48

sense of justice. But

39:50

having said that, there's also many

39:53

trials which are pending and for

39:55

a long time and have not

39:58

seen the same sort of results. And in

40:02

this case, particularly, the im is of a sense,

40:04

a lot of defendants we are talking about

40:06

are really old. And we are

40:08

not sure if they will be still around. By

40:11

the time the courts find the willingness or

40:13

the time to address these cases. So

40:16

there's both sides to it. Okay,

40:18

well, let's move on to the second type of

40:20

case. And this is the second example that you

40:23

talked about in your book. And that was the

40:25

Center for Constitutional Rights and the

40:28

case against CACI in the United

40:30

States for war crimes committed in

40:32

Iraq. And the context of

40:34

that was the US Alien Tort Statute. I

40:36

wonder if you could tell us first of

40:39

all, a bit about that, because that may

40:41

not necessarily be something that our listeners will

40:43

necessarily know about. So

40:45

Alien Tort Statute is actually a very

40:48

old legislation

40:50

in the from

40:52

the US, which allows civil

40:55

claims before American courts

40:57

for violations of international

41:00

law. Simply

41:02

stated, and

41:04

again, I discussed this in the book, probably

41:06

when the drafters came up with the

41:08

law that they did not have, they did

41:10

not think that that's the direction that the

41:13

ATS, Alien Tort Statute claims will take. This

41:15

has become sort of a

41:17

door for many human

41:19

rights claims, claims

41:22

based on human rights violations or international

41:24

violations in general. And

41:26

that was also like this first

41:28

remedy, this remedy coming to light

41:31

or becoming this sort of door

41:33

for all kinds of international law cases

41:35

and crimes basically, they're taking place anywhere

41:37

in the world. That is a violation

41:39

of international law and can be brought

41:43

for American courts. And, and

41:45

that was also the fact that it came to

41:47

light was where the organization

41:49

that I'm talking about was actively involved in

41:52

bringing that remain Making this remedy

41:54

what it is now. And It's

41:56

been severely limited and restricted over

41:58

the years. You

42:01

don't need to work or other

42:03

victims but I can see some

42:05

rights as they've given me. Teacher

42:07

Kang said of the yeah. Well

42:10

went for these cases so

42:12

that was the the contacts

42:14

for us moment or statutes

42:16

and and the further more

42:19

specific granular contacts was the

42:21

private military and security companies

42:23

that have been used by

42:25

Biden major powers to to

42:27

prosecute was tosser bit more

42:29

about this cycle privatization of

42:31

war and the particular company

42:33

that was the subject to

42:35

me this case in this

42:37

case. Absolutely at the end.

42:39

This is. Again, nothing new. Corporations

42:42

have been and states have

42:44

been using military operations for

42:46

the in that war effort

42:48

up for a long time,

42:50

but this really became sort

42:52

of unavoidable out or this

42:55

tale effect was so large

42:57

that it took center stage.

42:59

And during the Iraq War

43:01

and. Us lock

43:03

once and a. Day.

43:08

It was cool locally being referred to

43:11

as the coolest in of the building

43:13

this end of the people at the

43:15

corporations were really those and the once

43:17

really fighting the com. The

43:20

War on Behalf of The States. And

43:22

yet, something and thirteen, The

43:25

lot of the organization said

43:27

there's anything. Figure days in

43:29

a sense of target military

43:31

security. Companies will directly involved

43:34

in the war effort in

43:36

Iraq and of. A

43:38

young and in this kid. But

43:40

and and the kind of duties

43:42

that them that employs a had

43:44

in the words hadn't really blurs

43:46

the line between and who is

43:49

as legitimate set of forty two

43:51

the conflict and whatnot and than

43:53

the kind of at their been

43:55

some when this gray the one

43:57

with not really combatants of members

43:59

of. army but also not

44:01

civilian. So it allows some greater

44:03

sort of field

44:07

of impunity, let's say. And

44:10

what were the specific allegations against

44:12

Khaki? So in this case, Khaki's

44:16

employees were present

44:19

at the detention centers in

44:21

Iraq, and this one particularly

44:23

Abu Ghraib, close

44:26

to Baghdad, and

44:28

there was rather sensational expose

44:30

of the torture

44:32

that was taking place in Abu Ghraib. So

44:34

the military security employees, they were

44:37

there as interpreters, investigators,

44:39

but the allegations

44:41

were that they were involved in the

44:44

torture of innocent Iraqi civilians

44:47

in the prison. And the civilians, when

44:49

they sort of were

44:52

released without ever being

44:54

tried or ever being even charged

44:58

for anything, for

45:01

any criminal conduct, when they were released,

45:03

they thought just

45:05

as against the military cooperation.

45:09

Now, the Center for the Constitutional

45:11

Rights, ECR, was the specific civil

45:14

society organization that brought this case.

45:18

Tell us a bit about their

45:20

strategy, how they have effectively

45:25

abused the alien tort statute through the courts

45:27

and where we are now, because the cases

45:29

are still ongoing. Yeah,

45:31

the cases, yeah, we are

45:34

talking, it's been over two

45:36

decades, and the case is still

45:38

ongoing. Again, the

45:40

challenges that one faces

45:43

while talking about while

45:45

working with corporate accountability.

45:48

CCR, again,

45:50

a very important actor in the

45:53

sort of legal strategic litigations here

45:55

in the United States. They've

45:58

used alien tort statutes particularly, in

46:00

a very strategic manner. They

46:03

were one of the first ones who

46:05

sought representation for

46:07

detainees at Guantanamo Bay at the

46:09

time, which was when

46:13

it was quite controversial, oh,

46:15

quite, sorry, quite controversial to

46:17

do that. And

46:21

basically, they're underlying strategies to challenge

46:24

excessive, excesses of

46:26

executive power of the

46:28

United States, and particularly when they are carried

46:31

out against people of other

46:34

countries. And they've

46:37

taken up more of the pieces and

46:40

should have successfully sought justice

46:42

in all those cases. And this

46:45

was in that line where they were challenging

46:49

the corporate element of this war

46:53

and did not just go after the

46:55

government, but really

46:57

wanted to challenge the

46:59

corporate involvement in the war and

47:02

hence went for this corporation, secured

47:04

evidence, and of course, had

47:08

access to these victims. But it's

47:10

also interesting to see how

47:12

these sort of alliances are built. Can

47:15

you tell us a bit about why

47:17

it's significant, why this litigation in

47:19

particular is significant in terms of

47:21

using international criminal law as an

47:24

argument in the Alien Taught claims

47:26

framework to hold corporations accountable

47:28

for their participation in international crime? Do you

47:30

spend quite a bit of time on that

47:32

in this particular section of the book? Yeah,

47:35

I think it's extremely significant. Again, as

47:37

I said earlier, that doesn't

47:40

really matter what framework, legal framework,

47:42

with which you're working with. So

47:44

a US criminal law does not

47:46

allow any such claims.

47:49

They use what they have, which is

47:51

Alien Taught statutes, to make claims based

47:54

on international law, but really want to

47:56

underline the gravity of what they're

47:58

talking about. So it's not... just

48:00

again, not just about culture

48:03

in detention centers, it's about underlying

48:06

the extent of the involvement of

48:08

the corporation, the gravity

48:10

of the crimes that they're committing

48:13

in, and sort

48:15

of, it's again, has a

48:17

broader symbolic significance using

48:20

international criminal law and bringing it home,

48:23

trying to enforce the

48:25

law even when there's no sort of clear framework

48:29

laid out against strategic,

48:32

innovative use of the

48:34

existing legal remedies to somehow bridge

48:37

that accountability gap. Great,

48:39

I think we're now seeing the

48:41

connections between cases in

48:44

case one and cases that you've exemplified

48:46

in the CCR case against Keiki. Let's

48:49

go to the third case that

48:51

you've selected. That's the European Center

48:53

for Constitutional and Human Rights and

48:55

Sherpa, focusing on the complicity of

48:57

the French cement company La Fauche

49:00

in crimes against humanity committed in Syria.

49:02

Could you tell us a bit

49:04

about the non-state actor, European Center

49:06

for Constitutional and Human Rights, and

49:09

a little bit about the allegations as well?

49:12

Yeah, here as I focus on

49:14

ACCHR, the

49:17

organization I was most familiar with, in

49:21

all honesty, they

49:23

do strategically, they're rather young if you

49:25

compare it with the other two

49:27

civil society actors in

49:30

terms of actively pursuing

49:32

strategic litigation

49:35

in a more streamlined manner. Their underlying

49:40

objective is to challenge the double

49:42

standards and implementation of international law,

49:44

specifically in Europe and Germany. That's

49:46

where the focus is and that's where a lot of, where

49:49

the corporate accountability angle also comes in.

49:52

So European states very often have this

49:54

outward stance of champions of global

49:57

justice and enforcers Of

49:59

International Law. New recruit the

50:01

world. But and. That

50:04

will come in and challenge. Accountability.

50:07

Have acted at home who may have

50:09

committed violations outside of the out of

50:11

the so that they played try to

50:13

capture. That angle of international justice

50:15

and survives an organization based in

50:18

Paris which particularly focuses on and

50:20

corporations only where he says he

50:22

is or has a much broader

50:24

focus on i international crimes and

50:27

migration and other. Kind of. I'm

50:29

sort of streams of internationalize.

50:31

Both Oh, and that's with

50:33

them. Both of them came

50:35

together, a particularly in challenging

50:37

Lafarge. As a different group of cement.

50:39

Manufacturer which is now Lafarge. Wholesome

50:41

a Swiss competition but at the

50:43

time when the. Criminal conduct

50:46

it took place. It was a French corporation.

50:48

To what the allegations. Are. That The

50:50

Lafarge I'm. Out as

50:52

a culture. Is being a dried

50:54

and also the executives they were. Actively

50:57

involved in a or they

50:59

were complicit in crimes against

51:01

Humanity that were committed by

51:03

the Islamic state in. The

51:07

summertime. Not. Funded as

51:10

and. They

51:12

ended. Up being about. Ballpark

51:15

thirteen million euros to the armed

51:17

group in order to continue carrying

51:20

on the operations of the factory.

51:22

And so, despite. The

51:24

sanctions and place despite the key a risk

51:26

to. Bear. Arms

51:28

to their employees and him

51:31

and the the that the

51:33

continued. Day operations

51:35

and ended up being the and whoop and

51:37

hence. invitation

51:41

i'd like the way you described

51:43

in the book as a creative

51:46

challenges to impunity and we talking

51:48

here about concepts of universal jurisdiction

51:50

so again for the benefit of

51:53

are non specialists listeners tell us

51:55

bit about what universal jurisdiction is

51:57

and how it was used by

52:00

ECCHR in this particular case?

52:04

So, universal jurisdiction is basically a

52:06

legal principle that

52:09

allows for criminal

52:11

prosecutions in countries

52:14

which have no direct link to the crime.

52:16

So, the crimes may have

52:19

been committed somewhere

52:21

else, the victims may have been

52:23

somewhere else, the perpetrators may

52:26

have been somewhere else. The three things

52:28

which usually give you the

52:31

jurisdiction to try crime. If

52:35

those crimes are international crimes, as

52:37

how international criminal law aims it as

52:40

poor crimes that shock the conscience of

52:43

the international community as a whole phrase

52:45

that comes up very often, that

52:48

justifies universal jurisdictions.

52:51

Because the crimes are of such a

52:53

nature that it affects the international community.

52:56

So, even a state does not even have a

52:58

direct link to the crime, they can prosecute

53:01

them. In most cases, this is the

53:03

sort of principle in

53:05

paper, but in practice, most

53:08

cases do have some link. Either

53:11

the perpetrator is present on

53:13

the territory of the

53:17

prosecuting state, or in

53:19

this case, the perpetrator

53:21

is headquartered in the state.

53:24

So, that gives them the clear direct

53:26

jurisdiction, but that's creatively

53:29

using this mechanism, this

53:31

remedy, this avenue that's available

53:33

to challenge the double standards and

53:35

implementation of international criminal

53:37

law. I think one of

53:39

the challenges is often that

53:42

the perpetrators are very powerful

53:44

and very senior. And

53:46

in this particular case, you talk about this idea

53:49

of a politically inexpensive

53:51

defendant. So, tell us

53:54

a bit about that, why that's really

53:56

important for the Prosecution

53:58

of these. These

54:01

cases by the had non state actors.

54:04

Yeah. So what I mean away

54:06

politically, an extensive descendants and say.

54:08

Okay, the and was and jurisdiction. Cases.

54:11

Have been on the rise in the last

54:13

couple of decades and just came into being

54:15

After that on Tattooed was incorporated. In

54:18

these domestic flights same

54:20

but and. Our the

54:22

courts have used this

54:24

framework that say often

54:26

against our actors. Which

54:29

to not. It's

54:31

basically to There's a general

54:33

agreement that we have these

54:35

are dead that it's not

54:37

a controversial choice. So if

54:39

we're for instance Germany prosecuted

54:42

oh members of the Assad

54:44

regime of and Cbs does

54:46

not A lot of political

54:48

controversy of the led a

54:50

Syrian regime has guided programs.

54:52

Guess your majesty of the

54:54

A it's if it's about

54:56

politically and easy case let's

54:58

say. But as the same

55:00

time they have been attempts to

55:03

also hold accountable the American actors

55:05

for their crimes own. I

55:07

own and in Iraq for

55:10

instance, our of all. Kinds

55:12

of others that have politically powerful lead as

55:14

the those litigation. usually they just dipped in

55:17

the bud and they do not see the

55:19

light of the day so that that's kind

55:21

of and one sees the spot and that

55:23

there has. Been an increase which is

55:26

great and pleased implementation of international Criminal

55:28

law. A crowd these victims do. Not.

55:30

Have a remedy that and ease of

55:32

access to remedy otherwise in any other

55:34

avenues of this is a great avenue

55:37

to have a fully admitting that but

55:39

at the same. Time. Also, there's there's

55:41

a limit to how far the

55:43

stuff of this remedy has been

55:45

applied by the states. And talk

55:48

a bit about the importance of

55:50

the symbolism of International criminal law.

55:52

And in a case such as

55:54

this stuff. a little bit about

55:56

this and in context of that

55:58

particular case and. So this

56:00

case becomes particularly significant because this

56:03

is the first corporation as

56:06

such that's been challenged for crimes under

56:08

international law. So that really

56:10

sort of answers all the debate

56:12

that has been going on for years

56:14

that corporations, can they come at international

56:16

crimes, isn't it just about the people? They

56:19

really underlines the fact that people are disposable.

56:22

It's the structure of the corporation

56:24

that really is the fueling factor,

56:26

the driving factor of these crimes

56:28

and it holds

56:31

the corporation accountable. I

56:33

mean, the case is still ongoing, so subject

56:36

to the final result. But this

56:39

is, this challenges the

56:41

involvement of a corporate structure

56:43

in large

56:46

scale crimes. And that

56:48

really is the key to what

56:50

makes this case extremely significant. There have

56:52

been some setbacks and even since the

56:54

book has been published, there was a

56:57

more sort of recent

57:01

judgment by the Supreme Court, which upheld

57:03

the charge of crimes against humanity, but

57:06

dropped an element of

57:08

it, which again, sort of

57:10

the crimes committed against Syrian victims.

57:14

If you look at it, it just again

57:16

highlights the kind of protections available to

57:19

different people and depending

57:22

on their nationality. But

57:24

yeah, so it really challenges that

57:26

part, that missing element. I

57:29

think the three cases do a really

57:31

excellent job of drawing together some important

57:33

themes for a twale analysis

57:36

of international law, international criminal law.

57:39

But I wanted to ask you in conclusion really,

57:41

what do you think are

57:43

the major implications for these

57:45

three types of strategic litigation

57:47

in the future for victims,

57:50

for international criminal law generally

57:52

and for corporate accountability? In

58:00

terms of corporate

58:02

accountability, I think it really sets

58:04

the stage of various

58:06

ways in which it is

58:08

possible to challenge this conduct.

58:11

In terms of strategic litigation, I think it's

58:13

still growing. Again,

58:18

if you don't fall into the

58:20

buzzword of the all-income signature in

58:23

which the word is being used, I think

58:25

it really sets the road back for how you

58:27

can use law as a means to critique it,

58:29

even. If not seek

58:32

accountability, but at least leave that symbolic

58:34

message that, hey, there are gaps. And

58:37

that really situates law

58:41

in the broader social and political context. And

58:43

with that awareness, that litigation is also carried

58:45

out. It takes as much as it is

58:47

about the law in the courtroom. It is

58:50

also about law outside the courtroom. So there's

58:52

a lot of engagement

58:54

with the social movement,

58:56

with the victims, with

58:58

the academics, with the,

59:00

yeah, basically framing the

59:02

public narrative of it. And all of that

59:04

adds to the general point

59:08

of what I said earlier, using law as a means to

59:10

critique it. And with

59:13

respect to international criminal law, I think it

59:15

really goes to the point of, as

59:19

I sort of alluded to earlier, it brings

59:21

it home. The

59:23

ideal point was, anyway, when Rome's

59:26

statute was being drafted or when ICC was being

59:28

set up, the real objective was that this is

59:30

going to be the court of last resort. The

59:34

real primary sites of implementation of

59:36

international criminal law are going to be

59:38

domestic courts. And through

59:40

cases like these, international criminal law

59:43

is being brought home and

59:45

it's being implemented in the domestic framework.

59:47

It increases the familiarity of the judges.

59:51

I mean, it has been a long journey and it will

59:54

continue to be, it's still a long way to

59:57

go, but domestic courts will start to become.

1:00:00

become familiar with such cases

1:00:02

and the hostility and the hesitation

1:00:05

is slightly reduced.

1:00:08

And I think in terms of victims, and

1:00:10

that speaks to again the twill aspect also,

1:00:13

I want to underline

1:00:15

this sort of transnational alliances

1:00:17

nature of

1:00:21

these kind of legal interventions. It

1:00:23

helps blur the geographical understanding of

1:00:25

Global South, Global North. There

1:00:28

are actors in all parts of the

1:00:30

world which are really trying to work

1:00:33

towards the same goals, to

1:00:35

challenge the law and to want

1:00:37

a more just legal order, not

1:00:39

just academics, not just legal

1:00:41

practitioners, but social movements, directly

1:00:43

working with victims. Really

1:00:47

makes it a

1:00:49

cosmopolitan project, if I can say so.

1:00:53

I think that's a key characteristic of

1:00:56

this practice, but also really

1:00:58

helps to bring to

1:01:00

light the

1:01:03

direct impact that the people

1:01:06

most affected by international crime, the large-scale

1:01:08

violence are facing. Well,

1:01:11

thank you, Kalika. You've been very generous with

1:01:13

your time, but I've got one last question. What

1:01:16

are you working on right now? It's

1:01:22

very preliminary stages. I want

1:01:25

to continue working on this sort of broad

1:01:27

theme, but I want to take it into

1:01:30

sort of different directions. One,

1:01:34

using corporate, continuing on

1:01:36

corporate accountability direction,

1:01:39

but more in the context of environment

1:01:41

and environmental harm and

1:01:43

ecocide in that direction. And secondly,

1:01:45

I want to still sort of

1:01:48

keep looking at how ICL or

1:01:51

sort of keep placing colonialism in

1:01:53

the understanding of the few

1:01:55

like the history, the

1:01:58

present and the future. of

1:02:01

international criminal law. So I want to keep

1:02:03

doing that analysis. I have a couple

1:02:05

of papers here and there in

1:02:07

the making, but that's the two

1:02:09

broad directions I think my future

1:02:11

research will take, but it's all

1:02:14

very preliminary to be talking about in

1:02:16

greater detail. Well, that all sounds really

1:02:18

interesting and fascinating. And hopefully we can

1:02:20

have you back at another time to

1:02:22

talk about that when it's all out.

1:02:25

So thank you so much for being on

1:02:27

the podcast today. I really enjoyed our conversation.

1:02:30

Thank you so much for having me. And

1:02:32

I loved discussing this with you. Thank you. With

1:02:46

Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky

1:02:48

just about anywhere. Dearly beloved, we

1:02:50

are gathered here today to... Has anyone

1:02:52

seen the bride and groom? Sorry,

1:02:54

sorry, we're here. We were getting lucky in the

1:02:57

limo and we lost track of time. of

1:02:59

time. No, Lucky Land Casino, with cash

1:03:01

prizes that add up quicker than a guest

1:03:03

registry. In that case, I pronounce

1:03:05

you lucky. Play for

1:03:07

free at luckylandslots.com. Daily bonuses

1:03:09

are waiting. No purchase necessary. Void where

1:03:11

prohibited by law. 18 plus. Terms and

1:03:14

conditions apply. See website for details. for details.