Inside Geneva: books to make you think

It’s been quite the week. On our last Inside Geneva podcast, we discussed Washington’s bilateral talks with Moscow over the future of Ukraine – talks neither Ukraine nor its neighbours in Europe were consulted about or invited to.

A few short days later, even that discussion feels out of date. Since then United States President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance have delivered a quite astonishing dressing down to Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelenskyy – a spectacle which prompted not admiration for the “leaders of the free world”, but shock and disgust on this side of the Atlantic.

Now Europe is scrambling to clean up the mess, trying to find a robust peace deal for Ukraine that will include at least some US commitment. But in the long term, the transatlantic alliance looks well and truly dead. In the words of one European diplomat in Geneva this week “the US is not our friend anymore”.

Even if, in four years’ time, there were a new, friendlier occupant of the White House, the bond of trust between Europe – and I include the United Kingdom in that – has been broken, though European diplomats don’t want to say that out loud right now.

So on today’s Inside Geneva, instead of focussing on the latest distressing headlines, we take an in-depth look at the good things the post-world war two spirit of international cooperation created. By good things I mean international law. The guardrails, as a senior ICRC official once described them to me, between humanity, with all its flaws, and barbarity.

Thought provoking books

Our podcast this week has in-depth interviews with the authors of two very thought provoking books, both dedicated to the defence of human rights, and of international law.

The first is by Ken Roth, for three decades the head of Human Rights Watch, and now a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs, is part memoir, and part handbook on the most effective ways of defending human rights, and preventing violations.

It’s a surprising read in some ways. Many of us are familiar with HRW’s work documenting violations, we imagine its researchers taking risks in conflict zones or authoritarian states, to gather the evidence of abuse.

But while Roth does talk about this, he also gives a behind the scenes account of lobbying government leaders at the World Economic Forum, or the Munich Security Conference. Defending human rights is about confronting abusive regimes, he agrees, but it is also about persuading other governments to pressure the abusers, through sanctions, or economic, diplomatic, or military disengagement.

‘‘The defence of human rights is not a matter of holding a candle and singing Kumbaya, Roth tells Inside Geneva. The defence of human rights is about playing hardball.”

“It’s about putting pressure on governments, making them realize that repression isn’t paying because the consequences are so severe.”

But playing hardball does mean making enemies. Roth is persona non grata in both Russia and China, and has been subjected to relentless criticism from Israel for speaking out about human rights in the occupied territories, and the treatment of Palestinians. Israel has even called Roth, who is Jewish, “antisemitic”. Does this upset him?

“My father fled the Nazis as a young boy,” he tells me. “He lived in Germany and fled in July 1938 to New York. I grew up Jewish. I am Jewish. So the idea that I’m anti-Semitic is ridiculous.”

“And,” he adds, “I feel as a result, a certain responsibility to take on not just the duty of criticising Israeli abuses, but also to take on the misuse of {the term} antisemitism.”

Righting Wrongs is a fascinating book, with unexpected glimpses of what the world’s most powerful do when asked to intervene in human rights violations, useful advice for today’s human rights defenders, and above all hope and encouragement that defending and promoting human rights can still be done successfully.

All’s fair in war…

Our second in-depth interview on this week’s Inside Geneva is with Andrew Clapham. His book, simply entitled War has just won the prestigious Paul Reuter award for outstanding contributions to the study of international law. His explanations of what is allowed and not allowed in wartime may surprise you.

The old saying that all’s fair in love and war is, of course, not true. There are plenty of laws around how we should wage these days, but nevertheless, Clapham’s book suggests, we don’t necessarily understand how strict those laws are.

The motivation for writing the book, Clapham tells Inside Geneva, was the increasing use of the word “war” to justify actions which in fact fall foul of international law. The “war on terror” for example. 

“Still you find people saying, but I’ve captured these people, they’re law of war detainees, I can do this” explains Clapham. “Or I can bomb that because it’s enemy property and I can do whatever I want with enemy property. But those are old ideas from almost medieval times.”

Under modern international law – the rules adopted after 1945 – the only really legal war is the one in which, like Ukraine, a country is defending itself from an attack. An “aggressive” war, like Russia’s invasion, is clearly illegal.

Accountability and prosecutions

Clapham is a professor of international law at Geneva’s Graduate Institute, so when he points out that Russia’s invasion is illegal, his lawyer’s mind also considers what the logical consequences of that illegality could be.

“One can speak about the leaders of a war of aggression as having individual criminal responsibility,” he explains. But he then adds, “if it’s illegal for the leader, maybe it’s illegal also for the soldiers who participate in it. And maybe it’s a violation not just to kill civilians on the other side, but Ukrainian soldiers.”

That is a very interesting, and not illogical interpretation of the law. If the war is illegal from the start, any form of participation in it, on the aggressor’s side, is illegal too. And although we know prosecutions for war crimes can take years, and we know that some leaders are blatantly disregarding international law, Clapham insists the legal structure remains robust.

“You can think that by changing the lawyers or creating facts on the ground, that you’re going to get away with it” he warns. “But those war crimes allegations, they stick to you for life. There’s no statute of limitation on war crimes, and you could easily find yourself prosecuted in 10 or 20 years’ time.”

Both books are fascinating, both interviews are too – hear them in full on Inside Geneva.

vm