Advertise on podcast: The Justice Edit

The President of the International Bar Association (IBA), Claudio Visco talks about accountability, international justice, democracy, and the future of the rule of law in an increasingly turbulent world. Discussing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Claudio explains why the IBA has supported efforts to establish a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression and reflects on the challenges of ensuring accountability for serious violations of international law. The conversation also examines the war in Gaza and the international legal response to the conflict. Claudio acknowledges the complexity of the situation, while expressing concern about the humanitarian consequences of Israel's actions since the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. “In our statement, which we issued immediately after the events, we clearly stressed that we accepted proportionality in the reaction. If you ask me has that proportionality occurred, and this is my personal view – it is Claudio Visco speaking, not the IBA, I am personally convinced it did not.” Claudio also considers whether differing international responses to Ukraine and Gaza risk undermining confidence in global justice mechanisms and discusses the importance of applying international law consistently, regardless of politics or power. The interview explores recent controversies surrounding the International Criminal Court, US sanctions, and executive actions targeting major law firms connected to investigations involving Donald Trump. While warning of growing pressures on legal institutions, Claudio remains hopeful about the resilience of democratic systems. “And this is, for us, an indication that the rule of law is so much part of the culture of a country, like the United States, that we know that the democracy will be able to regain the position that it should have.” The discussion also turns to grave tensions involving Iran, Israel and the United States, with Claudio examining the legal limits of self-defence under the UN Charter. “The United Nations chart says that there must be a reaction to an immediate threat of life or security. Whether what Iran was doing was an immediate threat or not, there was never a clear indication that they were intending to use weapons that they were developing against those states which have been attacking them." Beyond conflict and accountability, Claudio discusses the IBA's work on civic education, democratic resilience and artificial intelligence. He outlines why the organisation has established a dedicated AI Institute to better understand the technology and its implications for both the legal profession and society. The episode concludes with a discussion of the IBA's research into public perceptions of lawyers, the relationship between strong rule-of-law protections and socio-economic outcomes, and why Claudio believes younger generations should not lose faith in democratic institutions despite mounting global challenges. “Younger generations have a very pessimistic situation at what is happening. But for me, this is not justified… we want to take a balanced approach and say, yes, we are the first ones to work on what is going on, and what is going on is a number of serious attacks against the rule of law. But at the same time, you should be aware that the society is reacting. And this is the message we want to convey.” Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our funders: Irish Aid. The views expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of Irish Rule of Law International or its donors.

Across Northern Ireland and beyond, the legacy of conflict continues to raise difficult questions about truth, accountability, and the role of law in divided societies. In this episode of The Justice Edit, human rights lawyer Darragh Mackin reflects on the enduring challenges of addressing the past—and what it takes to build meaningful reconciliation. “28 years after the Good Friday Agreement, we still have not reached a resolution about how we deal with the past.” Darragh Mackin is Director and co-founder of Phoenix Law, a Belfast-based firm specialising in human rights, public law, and international litigation. Described as “a rising star on the international legal scene” (Irish Times), his work has placed him at the centre of some of the most significant legal cases in Ireland and internationally. In this conversation, Darragh reflects on growing up in South Armagh and Newry, and how his early experiences shaped his commitment to justice. He discusses the evolving role of law in Northern Ireland—from the constraints of the pre–Good Friday Agreement era to the opportunities and limitations that exist today. “To allow reconciliation to happen, we can’t just simply put a plaster over the previous cracks—we must address them.” The episode explores whether the legal system has provided a form of stability in the post-Agreement period, particularly in contrast to political uncertainty, and considers the legislation and landmark cases that have advanced human rights protections since 1998. Darragh also discusses some of the defining cases of his career, including his work on ‘The Hooded Men’ litigation, efforts to challenge legacy provisions in recent legislation, and his role in securing justice for families affected by the Stardust fire in Dublin. Reflecting on the 2024 inquest outcome, he recalls a moment that captured decades of perseverance: “When the verdict was read out, the whole room just erupted… and in the middle of it all, I heard one woman say two words: ‘At last.’” The conversation also looks outward, examining the growing pressure on the rule of law globally, and the risks posed when legal norms are weakened or disregarded. “And I think that if we effectively disregard the rule of law, we will enter a very, very dangerous place. Because then we are entering into a world where there are no rules.” At the same time, Darragh reflects on sources of cautious optimism, from cultural shifts among younger generations to new forms of legal collaboration and advocacy. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our funders: Irish Aid. The views expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of Irish Rule of Law International or its donors.

Across parts of the world, courts are publicly criticised, lawyers attacked, and democratic norms tested. In the latest episode of The Justice Edit, Dame Siobhan Keegan, Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and co-patron of Irish Rule of Law International reflects on what protects public confidence when institutions come under strain. Reflecting on Northern Ireland’s experience of conflict and peacebuilding, Dame Siobhan discusses how the courts functioned during the Troubles — often at a time when other political institutions were suspended — and why judicial independence became essential to maintaining public confidence. “Judicial independence and fairness have been, as I would describe it, lifelines for communities seeking security and equality.” The conversation explores the values that underpin both legal systems on the island of Ireland, the responsibility borne by judges and lawyers in an increasingly populist climate, and the risks that arise when trust in institutions begins to erode. Dame Siobhan also addresses the often-overlooked connection between legal integrity and economic stability: “So markets judge countries harshly where the rule of law is weak. Because the risk of arbitrary action or corruption is high.” Looking beyond Ireland, she reflects on global democratic backsliding and the danger of slow institutional decay: “What worries me is that by the time the damage is visible, recovery can be difficult, and public trust is dangerously undermined.” This episode is released alongside IRLI’s new Strategy 2026–2030, setting out our commitment to strengthen justice systems, defend the rule of law, and deepen cross-jurisdictional collaboration at a time of global democratic strain. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. The views expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or its donors.

Former President of Ireland and academic lawyer Dr Mary McAleese delivers a powerful and wide-ranging address on democracy, human dignity, planetary health, and the rule of law in this special end-of-year episode of The Justice Edit (formerly Horsehair Wigs). Recorded in front of a live audience at an IRLI event at the Law Society of Ireland in November, McAleese - in conversation with barrister, Peter Leonard - offers a searing assessment of the global political climate, warning of democratic backsliding, the rise of undemocratic leaders, and the growing normalisation of war and authoritarian power. Reflecting on the postwar international order, she cautions that, “Coming out of the Second World War, we hear now more warmongering talk, all of which can feed the big business that spins out of the war machine.” At the heart of her address is a clear ethical demand: "The sacredness of the human person, the sacredness of the earth — these things have got to be embedded in the employment of capital and big business. Without that, you get a wrecking match — and that’s what we’re seeing.” McAleese warns that democratic progress is never guaranteed, noting that even long-established democracies are now centres of decline: “Rather tragically, famous democracies are now the centre of that backsliding. They use the words democracy and rule of law, but in a sense that none of us would recognise as having any credibility.” She also reflects on the election of autocratic leaders within democratic systems, calling it “an awful sad thing… to see democracies capable of electing autocrats and people with second-century imperial ambitions.” The conversation explores the role of international institutions in resisting impunity and defending accountability. Of the International Criminal Court, McAleese observes that while some states may walk away from responsibility, “the fact that it exists… sends a message to all people under abusers of the rule of law that outside of them, there’s a world that actually dares to care.” She further defends the European Union as a cornerstone of postwar peace and cooperation, urging citizens not to abandon it in moments of frustration: “If you have problems with the European Union, remember why it’s there… You don’t walk away from it. You stay and fight your ground.” McAleese also challenges religious institutions to engage more actively in confronting violence, exploitation, and indifference, noting their global influence, before closing with a stark warning: “We are facing existential crises — and they are upon us in this generation.” This episode was recorded in memory of James Douglas, Irish Rule of Law International’s late Executive Director, and is dedicated to his commitment to human rights and the rule of law. This episode was recorded live in front of an audience, and some variation in audio quality is to be expected. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or its donors.

The Americas director of Human Rights Watch, Juanita Goebertus Estrada sits down with us this month to talk about El Salvador’s policy of mass incarceration. For a country the size of Massachusetts in the US, El Salvador has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Unlawful detention and an abuse of power have become hallmarks of the reign of the Salvadorian President, Nayib Bukele, who once described himself as “the world’s coolest dictator”. The country is a long-running state of emergency – since 2022 - and there are calls to reinstate suspended constitutional rights. “Now, El Salvador has the equivalent of 1.4% of its people incarcerated. In many senses for Salvadorians, this has been presented as a paradox: if they want security, they need to sacrifice their human rights,” says Juanita. According to the World Justice Project, El Salvador ranks 111th across 142 countries in its rule of law index for 2024, with steady declines since 2020. It all started as a crackdown on gangs in 2022 after a series of homicides committed by criminal gangs, but quickly turned into a policy of mass incarceration. Various human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have documented arbitrary arrests, torture and huge violations of due process. According to Juanita: “It started by being able to capture without a warrant, being able to prosecute without sufficient evidence and maintaining people in pre-trial detention indefinitely.”  And as Bukele ramped up his crackdown on civil liberties, he gained a significant ally in the US President Donald Trump. In exchange for a few million dollars, Trump unlawfully deported over 200 Venezuelans from the US who were held in El Salvador’s high security prison for gang members. The deal was done after Bukele went to Washington to visit Trump. “Seeing Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office, it seemed as if they were sharing lessons on how to be an authoritarian leader,” says Juanita. With over 100,000 people now in prison in the country and with reports of torture and mass violations of due process, what’s its future? And what sort of an impact is Trump’s relationship with Bukele having on wider power dynamics in Latin America? Tune in, to hear Juanita’s compelling insights. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or its donors.

Patrick Paul Walsh of the School of Politics and International Relations at University College Dublin talks to us about the future of overseas aid. Dr. Walsh is currently on secondment to the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, where he works as Vice President of Education and the Director of the Sustainable Development Goals Academy. He voices his support for continued efforts towards sustainable development goals, for the greater good: “What it says is that you actually do care for people and nature outside your own jurisdiction. And that you do have a responsibility for them. To operate outside of that would be very, very dangerous.” The most recent figures from the OECD show that international aid from donors fell in 2024 by over 7%. And the headlines have been dominated, this year, by the dismantling of USAID - the largest historical provider of aid. Dr. Walsh questions the lack of a contingency plan for such a big withdrawal of money: “Did anyone think of insuring the project for anyone pulling out? Was there any contingency plan for this? How do, suddenly, the doors shut, and people who need important medicines or orphanages… how do these just close overnight?” Where do we go from here? How do we continue to address global issues, like peace and security, climate change and human rights? Dr. Walsh says people are now looking at other ways of potentially financing developing countries: “We’re kind of thinking how do we finance a sustainable planet. And all countries need to be involved in sustainable development pathways. It’s all people everywhere, not just governments of the developing world…. People are starting to think, why wouldn’t richer countries provide state guarantees? Why wouldn’t they go in with intergovernmental banks? And why can’t big insurance companies do all the modelling and risk analysis? The bottom line is… the money would be there.” Dr. Walsh believes, firmly, that Ireland should continue to push for an international rules-based order and multilateralism, ways in which sustainable development goals can be achieved. As many countries scale up militarisation and misalign themselves with international law, he believes that operating outside of an international order would be very, very dangerous: “We have to do everything possible to promote diplomacy across the world, for everyone. We never should get behind any flags that are against that. And, of course, if they break international law, you call them out. Of course, you support court cases against them in international courts, but you are basically neutral and you want the international order to work, and you keep pushing for that.” Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

From supporting Ukrainian justice actors in investigating and prosecuting international crimes to the weakening of the rule of law and the climate crisis, our guest this month, Aonghus Kelly has a lot to talk about. Aonghus is an international criminal and human rights lawyer and has just finished his stint as head of the international crimes’ legal unit for the European Union Advisory Mission (EUAM), Ukraine. Aonghus and his team were brought in after Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country, to help document and collate information, with a view to prosecutions. But, unlike the International Criminal Court, EUAM doesn't have an executive mandate, which Aonghus found frustrating: “You know what to do. You know how to do it. You know what needs to be done. But you can’t do it. So you can just advise them.” And Aonghus is also skeptical about seeing multiple cases go before the ICC, believing rather in financial compensation as a more realistic means of justice for Ukrainians, but says redirecting frozen Russian assets for this purpose might prove problematic: “What about the other terrible actions being taken by sovereign countries around the world. Are their assets going to be seized?” Aonghus, like other previous guests on the podcast, expresses great concern over the rule of law, as some western states continue to support Israel: “Given what we are lecturing the Russians on, this is a little problematic, if western countries aren’t as fulsome in their expressions as regards Israel, as they have been as regards Russia. In fact, it worries me deeply because it seems to prove one of Putin’s talking points, which is that the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Justice system, the International Rule of Law is all a western construct and is a complete fake and just serves the west. I don’t believe that. I have never believed that. But you’d have to say, this is a useful piece of evidence for him (Putin), to exhibit before us all and say, ‘I told you’. Aonghus recently upskilled in getting a Masters in Sustainability from Cambridge. He talks about the climate crisis, the human rights abuses associated with extractivism, climate denialism and biodiversity loss: “What we are telling people right now is, ‘We don’t care if your land is being swallowed up by the Sahara Desert, or the rains don’t come anymore, or the big fishing ships have come from rich Northern countries and have swooped up all of your fish. We don’t care about any of that. You need to stay there in squalor and, of course, do look at your mobile phone that we have sold you.'” Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

What does the rule of law mean? That’s the question on our podcast this month, with our guest Maria McCloskey, Irish Rule of Law International’s (IRLI) Executive Director. There is no one-agreed definition of the rule of law, but broadly it’s a set of principles upon which a foundation of a society is built and governed - politically, institutionally and legally. Some of the core elements are justice, equality and peace. For Maria: “The key principles, for me, are equality before the law, access to justice and it’s also about having an independent judiciary, and that separation of powers between legislature and the judiciary.” Maria further discusses what the rule of law means in the context of IRLI’s programming. With an extensive access to justice programme in Malawi, serving the most vulnerable in the community and a programme in Zambia helping to tackle widespread corruption in the country, along with a pilot project improving access to justice for unrepresented accused people, Maria feels there is great interest in IRLI’s work: “Almost on a daily basis I have individuals and organisations saying, ‘Is there anything I can do?,’ so I know that the will of the people here in Ireland - North and South - is huge and growing all the time.” Maria’s thoughts are especially interesting, given recent sweeping blows to human rights globally, particularly since U.S President Donald Trump entered his second term in office. “We can see so many countries around the world starting to take backward or retrograde steps and undoing some of those systems that have been built up since World War II. There is an element of the unravelling of the protections which is very concerning and worrying,” she says. Maria also talks about another pilot programme IRLI has launched, in Tigray, supporting victims’ groups; ensuring their voices are heard, as part of the peace process there. She believes that academics and civil society groups in Ireland are uniquely positioned to provide expertise in the transitional justice space, given The Troubles in the North. And she talks about a recent visit to Ireland from the Ukrainian judiciary, who operate in the country despite Russia’s continued invasion. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

On this month’s show, we’re joined by Alia Al Ghussain, a researcher and advisor with Amnesty Tech, who talks about the huge need to centre human rights in the technology sector. “This is a bad situation and it’s primed to get even worse,” she says, on the back of the move by Meta earlier this year, to end its practice in the US of fact-checking information posted on its platform. The development is seen as a backward step to curry favour with the Trump administration, according to Alia: “It marks a very clear retreat from the company’s previously stated commitments to responsible content governance and I think it also shows that Meta hasn’t learned from its previous recklessness, or if it has learned anything that those learnings have been discarded, basically.” Amnesty Tech has previously investigated and released reports into the role that various tech companies have had in human rights abuses. One of the major reports that first shed light on the issue - that of digital players now needing to own responsibility - was its report into the persecution of the Rohingya Muslim community in Myanmar, looking into what role Meta played; how hate speech on its platform promoted violence against the Rohingya. The report found that, “Meta’s algorithms proactively amplified and promoted content which incited violence, hatred, and discrimination against the Rohingya – pouring fuel on the fire of long-standing discrimination and substantially increasing the risk of an outbreak of mass violence.” And it concluded that: “Meta substantially contributed to adverse human rights impacts suffered by the Rohingya and has a responsibility to provide survivors with an effective remedy.” Another major report Alia was involved in looked at Facebook’s role in contributing to violence during the brutal two-year conflict in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region, which began in 2020 when the Ethiopian government began military operations there against the region’s ruling party. Amnesty concluded that Meta had once again – “through its content-shaping algorithms and data-hungry business model – contributed to serious human rights abuses.” In this episode, Alia explains how big tech players make their money from users’ data and discusses the harmful impacts of algorithmic curated content. She also shares her knowledge on how content goes viral, emphasising that it’s not necessarily that the content is good, but rather that it elicits an emotional reaction amongst users and generates a lot of engagement. Ultimately, Alia believes that digital platforms need to be redesigned with human rights at the centre and she calls for more governance in this area: “I think that governments and some regional bodies, like the EU, really need to double down their efforts to rein in big tech companies, like Meta and others, and also to hold them accountable… because this is about people’s lives at the end of the day. This isn’t an intellectual debate.” Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

On the programme this month, we talk to Dr. John Reynolds of Maynooth University, who discusses the reaction of states to the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the country’s former defence minister Yoav Gallant over suspected war crimes in Gaza. There’s been a mixed reaction to the move by the ICC. States signed up to the court are obliged to arrest both men on their territory, however there’ve been statements to suggest otherwise. John says that’s because law and the legal system isn’t insulated from geopolitics, imperialism or war economies: “The ICC, to take that as example, is not a panacea and we shouldn’t expect it to be. We are talking about major entrenched imperial power relations here… it’s one of many political battlegrounds and arenas of struggle.” The US, which is not a member of the ICC, has a contentious relationship with the court. John talks about these historical difficulties and the move by the US to sanction ICC officials in protest over the latest arrest warrants: “Because there’s a question of the west’s own internal self-reflection; What does this mean for us if Israeli leaders can be put on trial?’ And this speaks most directly and explicitly to the US position,” says John. After accusations going back some time by African states that the ICC is guilty of selective prosecutions of cases originating in Africa, this is the first time that the court has issued a warrant for a leader of a Western ally, in Netanyahu, which John reflects on. He says there is still a narrative, among the states who oppose the arrest warrants that, “… this is wrong from the perspective of the legitimacy of the court because we can’t create an equivalent between elected leaders of a democratic state, like Israel… we can’t equate them with these African warlords or non-state terror groups that we see as threats to our world view.” John says that Palestinian groups are pushing for an extension of the crimes being prosecuted, which currently include the war crime of starvation, as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. IRLI, as a supporter of national and international courts and judicial independence, believes strongly in the authority of the ICC and the responsibility of states signed up to the court to abide by its principles. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

The Director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law, Nikki Reisch is our guest on the show this month. Niki talks about the advisory opinion expected this year from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences for governments concerning climate change. The pending opinion comes on the back of two weeks of climate hearings in The Hague in December. In the largest case in its history, the ICJ heard from almost 100 countries and communities who delivered their testimonies on climate change. Nikki was there and described the atmosphere in the court as hugely moving: “The countries that are literally losing ground to the ravages of climate change showed time and again, through this process, that they not only have the moral high-ground, but the legal high-ground.” The case at the ICJ was led by the Pacific Island of Vanuatu and brought about as a result of the efforts of twenty-seven law students from the University of the South Pacific. Pacific island communities are among those on the frontline of climate change, once living in harmony with the ocean, now threatened by rising sea levels caused largely by warming global temperatures, caused largely as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Kicking off proceedings, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change and environment, Mr. Ralph Regenvanu said responsibility for the climate crisis lay squarely with, “a handful of readily identifiable states,” that had produced the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions but stood to lose the least from the impacts. Nikki says there was a very clarion call from countries around the world to reject efforts to give polluters a free pass and to instead carve out their conduct from long-standing fundamental principles of international law, saying the push, “was really resounding.” According to Nikki: “The whole world knows what caused this crisis and which countries bear the most responsibility and they’re simply asking for the court to affirm that, yes indeed, that conduct was in violation of legal obligations then and now, and that there is a duty to remedy and repair that harm.” A stark division emerged during the two weeks at the ICJ, during which countries like the US, Britain, Germany and France were heavily criticised for their stance and accused of talking down ambitious climate action. For example - the world’s largest historic greenhouse gas emitter, the US, its representative at the talks Margaret Taylor - its then legal adviser at the state department - said the current UN climate change regime, “embodies the clearest, most specific, and the most current expression of states’ consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change,” adding, “any other legal obligations relating to climate change mitigation identified by the court should be interpreted consistently with the obligations states have under this treaty regime.” She was talking about treaties agreed at UN climate change talks, known as the Conference of the Parties (COP), and the historic agreement reached by states in 2015, known as the Paris Agreement. That’s when states pledged to keep the warming of the planet below 1.5°C degrees. And although, since coming into his second term in office, in January 2025, US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, Nikki argues that the issue at stake at the ICJ goes well beyond the Paris Agreement: “It’s important to clarify that countries’ legal obligations to prevent, minimise and remedy that impacts of climate change neither starts nor ends with the Paris Agreement. Those agreements (COP agreements), they were adopted under the backdrop of human rights law and long-standing international law. One of the fundamental tenants of inter-state relations in respect of sovereignty is that one country can’t undertake activities or allow activities on its territory that would harm another. And that it was, in fact, in response to those long-standing principles, not in spite of them or to replace or displace them, that the climate treaties were agreed. But in fact, nothing in those treaties cuts off the application of those laws or suggests that they replace or supplant existing obligations.” Ultimately, Nikki believes that what was heard at the ICJ hearings will offer huge hope: “The knowledge that people can unite together, to not only stand up against big polluters and powers with vested interest, but actually influence the course of history and use the law for justice, not for advantage and self-interest. And I think that’s really part of what makes this a watershed moment for human rights, climate justice and accountability.” Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

Our podcast this month is a personal and professional tribute to a dear former Irish Rule of Law International colleague – international criminal and human rights lawyer James Douglas, who sadly died earlier this year. One of his best friends and fellow human rights lawyer, Pat de Brún reflects on his life and work. Pat is Head of Big Tech Accountability & Deputy Director of Amnesty Tech at Amnesty International. James, from Dublin in Ireland, started his career with an internship at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, where he spent almost five years working as a lawyer and an investigator. He then joined an organisation, called Equitable Cambodia, a land rights organisation, with a heavy focus on community engagement. Afterwards, and a brief period working with the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in South Korea, he began working with Victim Advocates International, which enabled him to merge his two primary interests: community engagement and international criminal law. He mainly worked with Rohingya survivors of the 2017 clearance operations, assisting them with devising advocacy and legal strategies. James joined IRLI during Covid-19 in October 2020 and worked as Director of Programmes and also served as Executive Director. We miss him deeply. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

The Executive Director of the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) at the International Criminal Court (ICC), Deborah Ruiz Verduzco is our guest on the show this month. The Trust Fund for Victims at the ICC is a central part of the court’s mandate: the reparative justice pillar of the court, giving effect to victims’ right to redress. But the court faces multiple challenges: “The principle is that convicted persons will be paying for these reparations and the practice has been that in the five cases to date, none of the convicted persons have had the resources for this,” says Verduzco. This has meant that states that have signed up to the court, founded by the Rome Statute, are now, unexpectedly, being asked to contribute to the fund, says Verduzco, “States have established the court and believe that this (fund) is important but they never expected themselves to be paying for this. So now that they need to pay for this, we need to create policy and logics to access those resources. We, of course, need to also work with the private sector… but ultimately this is a matter of the rule of law and, ultimately, a matter for states.” In July of this year, the Trust Fund for Victims issued its first urgent funding appeal of €5 million, to launch a reparation programme for victims of Dominic Ongwen, a former child soldier-turned-Ugandan rebel commander, sentenced to 25 years in prison for crimes, including murder, rapes and forced pregnancy. ICC judges awarded 50,000 of his victims more than €52 million in reparations, an order rivalling the entire budget of the Office of the ICC Prosecutor in 2023 (€59,340,000). Ongwen, himself, has no money and cannot pay any of it. Deborah talks about the appeal and the substantial ICC order, “How much of that money have we received? At the moment the pledge has not been fulfilled. We are in the process of dialogue with states; they are interested, they want to understand – we are speaking of a new era of giving money for different purposes, so we are really at the beginning of that process. But I am confident, I am hopeful that this will be fulfilled,” she says. But the fund doesn’t deal exclusively in cash. “We are not talking about, necessarily, always or if at all money. But we are looking at what the harm is and what measures can be taken to repair that harm, always in a symbolic manner,” Deborah outlines. In this episode, we get great insight into the workings of the fund, a hugely multifaceted arm of the ICC. It’s a fund heavily criticised for failing to deliver on its mandate, criticisms Verduzco addresses. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

Our guest this month is Dr Seán Columb, who for over 10 years has been investigating the illegal organ trade. Dr Columb is a legal academic - a senior lecturer in law at the School of Law and Social Justice at the University of Liverpool. Since 2014, he has spoken to over 40 people from countries including Sudan, South Sudan and Eritrea, who were fleeing conflict or the legacy of conflict, and who sold a kidney out of economic necessity. Selling or buying an organ is illegal anywhere in the world, except for Iran. It’s estimated that 10% of organs for transplantation come from illegal sources. The true number is likely higher, according to Seán, who says most cases go unreported because of the precarious legal status of the donors. Most of Seán’s research took place in Egypt, where he says people were targeted by criminal groups because of their vulnerable status as asylum seekers, refugees or undocumented migrants. Seán explains that most were not paid what they had been promised. He believes that these people have been doubly victimised, as illegal migrants and organ sellers. The black market for organs includes kidneys, corneas and liver lobes. Seán’s research relates to the buying and selling of kidneys. He believes there is a rising demand for kidneys partly because of the spread of so-called diseases of affluence – diabetes, hypertension, obesity – and the subsequent rise in kidney failure. He also attributes the increase to the privatisation of healthcare. From his research, Seán wanted to learn about how the trade in organs is organised, and how brokers rationalise what they are doing. Seán says some of the brokers are, indeed, former donors themselves. While doctors who carry out the transplants turn a blind eye to what is happening, according to Seán. From a legal perspective, Seán is interested in how law under certain circumstances can actually generate violence. He says, in many circumstances, this is an unintended consequence of laws and policies that are not really thought out, or understood from a human perspective. He says the focus of criminal investigations should be on the brokers, the personnel in the hospital chains performing the surgeries, including the doctors. Seán says to get good intel on the trade, it should be decriminalised, but by this he does not mean a regulated industry, rather Seán believes that it should be made clear that donors and recipients should not be prosecuted. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.

Governments and energy companies will be held legally responsible for past decisions when it comes to the energy sector, as justice takes centre stage. That’s the argument from this month’s guest - Irish Professor, Raphael Heffron. Professor Heffron is a Professor in Energy Law, Energy Justice and the Social Contract at the Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, Pau, France. He’s also a qualified Barrister-at-Law. His work focuses on achieving a sustainable and just transition to a low-carbon energy economy, and combines a mix of governance, policy and economics. He has published over 200 publications of different types and is one of the most cited scholars in his field worldwide for energy law, energy justice and the just energy transition. The just energy transition is an approach to the energy sector, moving away from a sector that has had economic principles at heart, and arguably a cosy relationship with fossil fuel companies. The just transition is rooted in economic and societal fairness, using eco-friendly technologies, limiting pollution and the further warming of our planet. Professor Heffron says, “In this huge sector in our economy, we are trying to ensure that we have a level of justice, via the rule of law, which we haven’t had before… With the knowledge that is out there today, you have to have a far greater basis for your decision-making, if you’re involved in the energy sector and that’s whether you are a policy maker, working in an energy company or a leader of a civil society organisation.” Professor Heffron and his colleagues have published an article in the journal Nature Energy. In it, they say that the role of justice is set to shift accountability and responsibility in the energy sector to governments and energy companies. Both governments and energy companies have traditionally evaded responsibility and according to one study from the International Monetary Fund, the fossil fuel industry gets subsidies of 11 million dollars a minute, and yet is responsible for three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Mr. Heffron argues that energy decision-makers today will be held legally accountable for past decisions and that this will influence how decisions are now made. He makes a case for “milestone reports” in which stakeholders can mark their progress towards climate goals and believes this will ensure that justice is ensured, tracked and climate pledges are achieved, with fairness at the heart of them. He discusses the recent case at the European Court of Human Rights in which 2,000 Swiss seniors won a significant ruling on holding their government accountable for addressing climate change. It ruled that that Switzerland failed to implement sufficient climate policies – violating the women’s human rights. However, now, the Swiss parliament has rejected the ruling saying it has a climate change strategy and with right-wing politicians criticising what they see as an overreach by “foreign judges”. Heffron responds by saying: “Maybe the fossil fuel industry has overreached into our economy for too long…” He also discusses ISDS – a controversial legal investment protection mechanism, which we have discussed with a previous guest on the podcast, believing the area is ripe for reform. Presented and produced by Evelyn McClafferty. With thanks to our donors: Irish Aid. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this episode do not necessarily represent those of IRLI or Irish Aid.