The Just Security Podcast

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 @shahdhmArdi Imseis@ArdiImseisVictor Kattan@VictorKattanMatiangai V.S. Sirleaf@matiangaiParas Shah@pshah518South Africa v. Israel articleIsraelPalestinecoveragecoverage

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@RachelKleinfeldParas Shah@pshah518articlecoveragecoveragecoveragecoverage

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(@CDroegeICRCTess Bridgeman@bridgewriterParas Shah@pshah518articleMary Warehamarticlecoverage

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@FoleyDiLuke Hartig@LukeHartigViola Gienger@ViolaGiengerParas Shah@pshah518articleLegacy Foundationcoverage

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@AuthorPMBarrettParas Shah@pshah518articlecoveragecoveragecoverage

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@AmbDanFriedViola Gienger@ViolaGiengerParas Shah@pshah518article coveragecoverage

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_ledermanMary B. McCordSteve Vladeck@steve_vladeckRyan Goodman@rgoodlawParas Shah@pshah518coveragecoverage

On June 24, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two top Russian officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Prosecutors allege that Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s former defense minister, and Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, directed missile strikes against Ukraine’s power plants and electrical infrastructure. Russian attacks on Ukraine’s power plants during the winter of 2022-2023 left 12 million people with limited or no access to energy and severely damaged Ukraine's health care system. Just how might the arrest warrants influence the war? Joining the show to discuss the arrest warrants and their potential impact are Kateryna Busol and Rebecca Hamilton. Kateryna is a Ukrainian lawyer and an Associate Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Rebecca is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University. Show Notes: Kateryna Busol@KaterynaBusolRebecca Hamilton@bechamiltonParas Shah@pshah518symposiumFionnuala Ní AoláinarticleepisodeViola Giengercoveragecoverage

The latest annual report from the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition identified more than 2,500 incidents of violence against, or obstruction of, health care in conflicts during 2023. Those incidents, which span from Myanmar to Mali, include attacks on health care workers and facilities, the use of drones to target hospitals and ambulances, and the occupation of hospitals to conduct military operations. And many attacks are carried out with impunity. Joining the show to unpack patterns of attacks on health care in armed conflicts is an expert team from the nonprofit organization Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and their local partners. Dr. Houssam al-Nahhas is PHR’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) researcher where he documents attacks on health care, including unlawful detention of health care workers, and advocates for access to health. Dr. Neema Rukunghu Nadine-Néné is a gynecologist at Panzi hospital in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and an expert trainer on the care of survivors of sexual violence for PHR and the Panzi Foundation. Uliana Poltavets is PHR’s Ukraine Emergency Response Coordinator where she focuses on documenting attacks on health care in Ukraine since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. Dr. “B” Zemen is an Organizational Psychologist and board member of the Health Professionals Network for Tigray (HPN4Tigray). Show Notes: Dr. Houssam al-Nahhas@h_alnahhasDr. Neema RukunghuUliana PoltavetsDr. "B" ZemenParas Shah@pshah518Christian De Vosarticle” coveragecoveragecoverageGazaRussia-Ukraine WarSyriaTigray

Just over two years ago, Russian forces fired a missile that destroyed a museum complex in Ukraine. The attack decimated the home of 18th-century Ukrainian philosopher and poet Hryhorii Skovoroda. Hundreds of years after his death, Skovoroda is still an important national figure. Ukrainian universities bear his name, and he appears on the 500 hryvnia note. For many Ukrainians, the attack felt like it struck at the core of their identity. Damage to cultural heritage has deep impacts on the people who care about and depend on it. Attacks in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, and other areas affected by armed conflict reveal a pattern of harm from explosive weapons to cultural heritage and, by extension, to civilians. But now, a new legal framework could change how nations protect cultural heritage during war. Joining the show to discuss the impact of explosive weapons on cultural heritage, and what States can do to address it, is Bonnie Docherty. Bonnie is a Senior Arms Advisor in the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. She is also a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic and Director of the Clinic’s Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative. Show Notes: Bonnie Docherty@bonnie_dochertyParas Shah@pshah518articlecoveragecoveragecoverage

Borders between countries are often dangerous, violent places. From the sands of the Sahel to the islands of the Mediterranean, borders allow governments to define who can enter a country – often deciding whether a person can find refuge or is left behind. Increasingly, borders are also spaces for governments and private companies to test new technology. But how is that technology being used? And what impact is it having for people on the move? Petra Molnar’s new book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in The Age of Artificial Intelligence offers a sweeping portrait of how new tech, from surveillance drones to lie detection software, is transforming borders around the world. A lawyer and anthropologist, Petra specializes in migration and human rights. She co-runs the Refugee Law Lab at York University and is a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. Just Security Podcast host Paras Shah recently sat down with Petra to discuss the book, which is available now from The New Press and wherever books are sold. Show Notes: Petra Molnar@_PMolnarParas Shah@pshah518book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in The Age of Artificial Intelligence The New Presscoveragecoveragecoverage

Last week, an international court issued a major decision that could impact how nations around the world address climate change and protect the ocean. On May 21, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), also known as “The Oceans Court,” delivered an advisory opinion holding that countries must take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from greenhouse gas emissions. This is the first time that an international court has ruled directly on countries’ international legal obligations to mitigate climate change. The European Court of Human Rights found similar State obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in April. The ITLOS decision is a major victory for the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, COSIS, a coalition of nine nations from the Caribbean and the Pacific. For small island States, climate change is an existential threat. Protecting the world’s oceans, which act as important heat and carbon sinks, is key to maintaining fish stocks, reducing the frequency and intensity of devastating storms, and preserving plants and wildlife. What exactly did the Tribunal decide? How might this groundbreaking ruling impact future climate policy? Co-hosting this episode is Just Security’s Managing Editor, Megan Corrarrino, and joining the show to discuss the Tribunal’s decision and its potential impact are Catherine Amirfar and Ambassador Cheryl Bazard. Catherine is Chair of the Subcommittee on Litigation Management of COSIS’s Committee of Legal Experts and the Co-Chair of the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton’s International Dispute Resolution Group. She is also the Co-Chair of Just Security’s Advisory Board. Ambassador Cheryl Bazard serves as The Bahamas' Ambassador to Belgium and the European Union. The Bahamas is one of the nine COSIS States that sought the opinion. Show Notes: Ambassador Cheryl BazardCatherine AmirfarMegan Corrarino@MeganCorrarinoParas Shah@pshah518Duncan PickardarticleRebecca Hamiltonarticlecoveragecoverage

We are over a month into former President Donald Trump’s historic criminal trial. The prosecution and defense have each presented their cases, and a Manhattan jury will soon decide whether Trump broke the law and interfered in the 2016 election by falsifying business records in an effort to cover up “hush money” payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. What has it been like inside the courtroom? What can we expect next from each side in closing arguments? Joining the show to discuss the trial and what comes next are seasoned legal reporters Terri Austin and Adam Klasfeld. Terri is an experienced lawyer and legal analyst and Adam is a veteran reporter and Journalism Fellow at Just Security. They’ve both covered Trump’s New York trial from inside the courtroom since day one. Show Notes: Terri Austin @TerridaustinAdam Klasfeld@KlasfeldReportsParas Shah@pshah518coverageTrump Trials Clearinghouse

On Monday, May 20, International Criminal Court head Prosecutor Karim Khan announced that he has submitted an application to the Court’s judges to issue arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Minister of Defence of Israel, and three Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The allegations are extensive, as discussed in a lengthy statement released by the Prosecutor, although the application itself is not yet public. The decision has major implications for the devastating conflict still raging in Gaza; and for how the Court interacts with nations across the world. In Washington, the arrest warrants are certain to threaten recent increased cooperation with the Court, and efforts to prosecute Russian officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine could also be jeopardized. Joining the show to discuss Khan’s request and its potential consequences are Todd Buchwald, Tom Dannenbaum, and Rebecca Hamilton. Todd formerly served as Ambassador and Special Coordinator for the State Department’s Office of Global Criminal Justice. Tom is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he is also Co-Director of the Center for International Law and Governance. Rebecca is a law professor at American University and an Executive Editor at Just Security. Show Notes: Tess Bridgeman@bridgewriterTodd BuchwaldTom Dannenbaum@tomdannenbaumRebecca Hamilton@bechamiltonParas Shah@pshah518Symposiumarticlearticlecoveragecoverage

Last month, Europe’s top human rights court issued a major decision in the fight against climate change. In KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, the highest chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that the Swiss government has violated the human rights of its citizens by not doing enough to address the threat of climate change. The decision is a landmark ruling for activists, lawyers, and communities who are trying to use human rights law to hold governments accountable for promises to fight global warming. But it’s not the only case asking what international law requires of nations when it comes to protecting the environment. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the International Court of Justice are all grappling with similar questions. What do these cases mean for the fight against climate change? Where are the opportunities and risks? Joining the show to discuss the “Year of Climate” in international courts and tribunals are Naima Fifita and Joana Setzer. Naima is a lawyer from Tuvalu who has taken an active role in proceedings by small island nations before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Joana is an Associate Professorial Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Show Notes: Naima FifitaJoana Setzer@JoanaSetzerParas Shah@pshah518Rebecca Hamiltonarticlecoveragecoverage

In recent decades, the international community has sought to address the particular harms that women and girls experience in war. International law now punishes sexual violence in armed conflict. And there’s the Women, Peace and Security agenda, which the U.N. Security Council launched in 2000 with Resolution 1325. That requires member States to consider impacts of conflict based on gender and to involve women more in all aspects of conflict prevention, management, and resolution. But while some harms rightly receive coverage and draw condemnation, other forms of violence are overlooked. In November 2023, the World Heath Organization estimated that there were 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza. Since the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack, it is estimated that nearly 20,000 babies have been born into the humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded in the Gaza strip. Around the world – from Ukraine to Sudan to Gaza – violence experienced by pregnant civilians, women giving birth, nursing women, and women struggling to survive in the period after childbirth remains entirely at the sidelines of global political conversations. Joining the show to discuss what experts call “obstetric harms” faced by women and girls in armed conflict and the obligations of combatants in the face of these risks, is Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. Fionnuala is the former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism, and a law professor at the University of Minnesota and at Queen’s University School of Law in Belfast, Northern Ireland. We’re honored to have her as an Executive Editor at Just Security. Show Notes: Fionnuala Ní Aoláin@NiAolainFViola Gienger@ViolaGiengerParas Shah@pshah518articlecoveragecoveragecoverage

On April 17, 2024, NYU School of Law hosted a panel of experts to discuss whether a former President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct that allegedly involved official acts during his tenure in office. The Supreme Court is considering that question in United States v. Trump and will hear oral argument in the case on April 25. The panel consisted of George Conway, a Contributing Writer at The Atlantic and Board President of the Society for the Rule of Law; Trevor Morrison the Eric M. and Laurie B. Roth Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus of NYU School of Law; and Kate Shaw a Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Andrew Weissmann, a Just Security Editor and Faculty Co-Director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law, moderated the discussion. Show Notes: George Conway@gtconway3dTrevor MorrisonKate Shaw@kateashaw1Andrew Weissmann@AWeissmann_coverage

Sudan and Gaza are teetering on the brink of man-made famine. In Sudan, fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the rival Rapid Support Forces has displaced more than 7 million people with 18 million people enduring acute food insecurity, and nearly 5 million of those suffering at emergency levels, according to the World Food Programme. In Gaza, Israel’s war against Hamas has left 1.1 million people, half the territory’s population, facing “catastrophic” food shortages, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification process. Using starvation as a method of warfare is a war crime. And while the most urgent need is for immediate access to food and humanitarian aid, the crises in Sudan and Gaza also raise important questions about how to hold those responsible for potential atrocities to account. Joining the show to discuss the situations in Gaza and Sudan, whether the parties to the conflict might be committing the war crime of starvation of civilians, and what might be done about it, is leading expert Tom Dannenbaum. Tom is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he is also Co-Director of the Center for International Law and Governance. Tom is a foremost expert on international humanitarian law, including: starvation of civilians, siege warfare directed at a civilian population, and accountability for these acts. Show Notes: Tom Dannenbaum@tomdannenbaumTess Bridgeman@bridgewriterParas Shah@pshah518articlearticlecoveragcoverage

Vladimir Putin recently claimed victory as Russia’s president despite extensive evidence that the “election” was illegitimate in a number of ways. His repression, including evidence of State-ordered assassinations and assassination attempts, and his manipulation of Russia’s legal systems and institutions seems to assure him power – and impunity. Putin’s efforts to consolidate that power have included eliminating most political opposition and civil society organizations and forcing independent media to shut down or move their operations into exile. The recent death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a remote prison camp exemplified the threats to anyone deemed critical of the Kremlin. The long arm of the Kremlin also extends far beyond its borders. In addition to the now decade-long war on Ukraine, which escalated into a full-scale invasion in February 2022, and military interventions in the Middle East and Africa, Russian exiles are also not immune from Putin’s wrath. Just Security's Washington Senior Editor Viola Gienger recently interviewed Gleb Bogush, a Russian lawyer and expert on international criminal law who fled Russia in 2022. Gleb is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center of Excellence for International Courts of the University of Copenhagen. He is also a member of the Cologne-Bonn Academy in Exile (CBA). Before 20222, he was an Associate Professor of International Law at the Moscow State University and HSE University in Russia, also known as the Higher School of Economics. This conversation took place a day before the March 22 terrorist attack on a Moscow concert hall that killed more than 130 people. Show Notes: Gleb Bogush@gleb_bogushViola Gienger@ViolaGiengerParas Shah@pshah518coveragecoverage

Haiti’s crisis of gang violence and political dysfunction has been spiraling out of control. The number of reported homicides more than doubled last year to almost 4,800, and kidnappings soared to almost 2,500 cases. Sexual violence is rampant, and 313,000 Haitians have fled their homes. In recent weeks, the crisis has reached new heights. While de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry was out of the country, the gangs took advantage and rampaged across the capital, Port-au-Prince. According to the United Nations, since the start of the year, the gangs have killed over 1,100 people and injured nearly 700 others. As the gangs roam freely, the United States and Caribbean countries – in a bloc called CARICOM – are trying to mediate a solution. The result thus far – though still unfolding – is that Henry has agreed to resign as soon as a transitional council of possibly 9 members is formed and an interim prime minister is chosen. But many questions remain about how that council and the interim prime minister will be appointed, which segments of Haitian society will be represented on it, and how a potential Kenyan-led international policing mission might go forward. Where does Haiti go from here? Joining the show to discuss the security situation in Haiti, and how policymakers in the region and around the world are addressing it, are Rosy Auguste Ducéna and Beatrice Lindstrom. Rosy is a human rights lawyer and Program Manager for the National Network for the Defense of Human Rights (RNDDH) in Haiti and has testified before the U.S. Congress. Bea is a Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic. Prior to joining Harvard, she was the Legal Director of the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, which works to bring Haitian grassroots struggles for human rights to the international stage. Show Notes: Rosy Auguste Ducéna@AugusteRosyBeatrice Lindstrom@BeaLindstromViola Gienger@ViolaGiengerParas Shah@pshah518articlecoveragecoverage