Webinar 2: International Law Related to Armed Conflict I: Ius ad Bellum

Okay, good morning everyone. Uh, I know it's still a little bit early, but as last time, we also ran over time, I just want to make sure that we have enough time to discuss everything that we want to discuss for today.

So, the purpose of today's webinar is a bit different than the first webinar, in that, um, I'm really gonna fire it back to you guys and ask the type of questions you might be having in regard to the essay. Um, before doing that, I just wanted to sort of give a few pointers in terms of both the lesson learned for me as an instructor of giving this course and seeing the type of mistakes being made and and the type of feedback that students really appreciated in that regard. Um, and in that, they're threefold.

I mean, my my first comment ties in very closely to what I discussed also, um, if I recall correctly, it was in particular to week two, um, feedback, and that is details, details, details, details, and context matters. And and the reason why I'm saying it is, um, as I said to a few, um, of you that were there already earlier, I think it is one of the few courses in international law where it even matters more how you reason something, on what facts you rely, and what connections you make, what conclusion you draw from the facts that you assert as true or convincing, what patterns you're seeing in the law, and thus whether something in your opinion is legal or not, or problematic or not in that regard. Or, and that's often a very hard decision to make because you might feel like an imposter syndrome. Do I really feel confident enough to say it? To say it's inconclusive? I just don't know enough to come to the conclusion whether something is permitted or not. And in that, the questions really matter. And I want you to be as critical as possible. And as you can see in the general feedback that I have given for week two, I think the majority of you really got the gist of what mattered and what questions we need to be asking. But similarly, the majority of you could have added almost two to three layers of depth of criticism, of questions we should be asking, of facts we need to know, of many steps we need to take before we can talk at all about proportionality, before we can talk at all about what is actually happening, what is the arm to attack, how does it look like, and etc.

So, setting that context is really important, and that is the reason why I have done different things over the years. I have had a year where I said, "I leave it up to you. Do literally choose whatever situation you want to choose and explain it further to me." Um, but I found out that it became harder, both for me and the students, to really ensure that sufficient level of depth there. So then, um, I included, sort of, I shortened the period, but without defining precisely which situations, and again, we noticed that there was a lot more guidance needed on how to further delimmit it. So that's why I included those four situations. Now, you can find them also in the syllabus. Um, as I don't know if on Moodle already the essay requirements are open. Um, it's, it's this weird thing with the weekly topics, and we cannot open it before that week is there. But in the syllabus itself, you can find the entire essay requirements, which is exactly the same as once you will see it where you can upload the essay. And you will see there are four situations mentioned there. And it's not that you can only choose those. It's just to make your life easier. You can also, if you want to focus on something that perhaps happened in your region and that you feel that is not included there in 2024, 2025, send me an email to get that approval. One, to ensure that it really concerns a case of use of force, and that it's not perhaps that the use of force, use of balance situation happened 10 years ago, and we're now just in a situation of, for instance, armed conflict where mainly that the recent discussion is on IHL and not on use of bellum that much anymore, but on the other end also, so that I, so that we can have a conversation together over email to ensure that you get that level of depth and that richness of the context that I was just earlier referring to. Okay?

So, either way, it's not a matter of bonus points or minus points if you go for the easy way and choose one of those four versus the other one. It's a freedom that I give you there. So, choose wisely there. See what works for you. And sometimes it's also a matter of trying one or two different situations and really trying it out. Where do I feel that maybe the step-by-step analysis comes most natural to me? You know, where do I feel that I can really provide a rich analysis? Um, maybe because of the type of sources that I have to my available ability, or maybe because of my understanding of the situation that preceded these strikes, so that I can provide that context. Right? That's all up to you there on why you choose one over the other. Um, and that makes no difference in that regard. So, in that per definition, you will end up further refining and fine-tuning that topic.

Now, the last two elements or choices that you have is where you see is that I refer to it as a situation instead of two specific strikes. And that precisely means because you would need to identify on which aspect do you want to focus on, right? Is it maybe the initial, for instance, use of force on article 24? Is it the response in self-defense? Is it the fact that you want to focus on the length of the situation and in the broader context, and you really want to zoom in on issues of necessity and proportionality? It requires you to not just at the beginning set that context, but most likely at a certain moment also say something along the lines of, "Due to the word limits or etc., I'm going to further delimit this essay, and then this is what I'm going to focus on," because it allows you and it permits you to really go in depth.

Um, some of you, and I'm checking if I have a very quick example, do I have? I'm just checking all the notes that I had on all of you. If I have a very quick example, because I remember particularly in those that focus on, let's say, topic one for for week two, which was the re situation with the legal questions, the sources, and the evidence needed, further fine-tuning was definitely needed because often these situations are messy. So, it's chaotic. There's so much going on, and there's so many questions that we can and should ask ourselves. But I do not want you to ask them yourselves, all of them, in the essay. Right?

Um, I know that, um, I personally very much dislike our forum setup, for it doesn't permit you to use, for instance, footnotes. Um, and I think it just makes your life a lot easier if you would be able to do that. But in an essay, I know that normally the majority of you, in our experience, are schooled on more the sociological type of referencing. So, it would be that you add, for instance, at the end of the sentence, um, you would add then, let's say, "Scrap 2024" or something like that to it. What I want to give you as an option to think about, um, I don't want to convert you there, but me being trained as a lawyer, um, I cannot think but in footnotes. And the reason why I think in footnotes and why I feel it helps me is because it allows me to say, for instance, um, let's take, um, let's take, for instance, the example of Russia-Ukraine. Right? We have there Russia, who has used several arguments on the right to self-defense. One of the arguments was, for instance, the protection of nationals, right? That they say, "We need to protect here the nationals," and that's the reason here it's accepted ground. So, if you would use, for instance, in footnotes, and if you do sociological type of references that need to be in your text, that's also fine. You would say, "Well, see similarly, for instance, these states that also uphold that it is a rightful claim to use self-defense in case of protection of se, self-defense." Or you would be able to add in the footnote, "On the contrary, see, for instance, states X, Y, and Z, who, or in the UN Security Council, or in the UN General Assembly, or perhaps through their statements, have held that the protection of nationals is not an accepted ground for right to self-defense there." Okay?

So, that's the way of comparing and contrasting is a very important aspect in your analysis because you're constantly trying to explain what is the main rule here? What is happening here? What is the type of defense here being made? Is this widely accepted? How am I proving that this is widely accepted? Meaning, I cannot just say "Scrap 2024," for instance. I would need more. I would need more unless, in, I for instance, in my article, I would give an extensive paragraph of saying why I feel it is widely accepted. But then most likely, I would add something in my main text of saying, "As Scott explained or deliberated or expanded upon in etc., etc., this is why it is widely accepted or not." So, references are a key aspect in your demonstration of understanding the context and understanding the way the law moves. And international law, unfortunately, it just moves in all different directions. And it's up to you to show and say, "Well, I'm here on the stream. Even though the majority goes in that way, this is how I see it. This is how I justify it." So, that's something there that I would also expect there in that essay. And I think in the reflection, while I totally get it, um, we very much stay closer to the, the company line that one author that would say whether it is legal or not. But my, my goal is, is through that step-by-step analysis and and and perhaps forcing you to use this method, is to feel confident enough to develop your own intrinsic thoughts and to feel confident enough to sort of navigate on how that law moves and to take those choices in it. And remember, there is not a right or wrong. I am not gonna say if, let's take the example of Russia versus Ukraine. I'm not going to say if you say, "Well, actually, Russia was permitted to invade Ukraine," that will say, "Well, that's an F." No, it depends on how you reason. It depends on the steps that you take, on how you explain it. The only thing to keep in mind is where do I have the majority opinion? Am I following the majority opinion? Then I might need less words, or I might need less references. If I'm going on the direction of a minority opinion, it means I need to explain it further and justify it further. I might need to rely on, let's say, a UN General Assembly resolution, or I might rely on state practice on how they see a particular issue. Um, and that is something, um, that you can sort of like navigate and and find out in where we, we're in week five, right? In this upcoming week, what you also have is when we're talking about the UN Security Council resolutions, I also give you an exercise to sort of figure out, okay, where can we find those resolutions and those discussions and statements happening if that's what you want to navigate. If you feel very stressed or lost right now and don't know where to find all of these type of things, um, feel free to also send me that email of saying, "This is what I want to argue, but I feel stuck right now whether to get those sources. I feel they're out there, but I don't know where to find them." Write me and I can guide you in that process also. I just prefer not to give those general tips as such because I feel I really like everyone's creativity and everyone's own approach in it, and I don't want a one fit for all pro, uh, format in that regard.

Um, is it like an note in academia to give context for something? In, um, Cindy, could maybe you can explain it to me before I, I give con, my answer to it, what I think you mean with it?

>> Sorry, I was, uh, referring to when you said about the footnote, when you're adding something. Is it like, Oh, yeah. Sorry. My only thing I know of is, um, an affidavit, and to me, that's when I interject into what I'm writing and say, like, "Recall when I talked about this," or "Because of this, this is the link to what I'm trying to get to."

>> Yeah. So, um, in, in, in more sociological, um, and, and again, it's, it's, I'm very schooled in the footnotes, so I sometimes find it hard to explain it, maybe clearly, um, as that's now how my brain works, but I think see it also in more social article type of, um, papers is that you would work with endnotes where you would give further context and further explanation to it. Those parts where you would say, "It doesn't need to be in the main text. It actually disrupts the flow of arguments, but I do want to show that I have this knowledge and that I know that there are opposing views to this," and that I, for instance, I would want to make a list of, let's say, these scholars are on this side, and the other scholars are on that side, and then you would sort of put them as, "These are arguing in favor of this. Those are arguing against it." And then you would feel that it would disrupt the flow of putting it in the main text. You can put it in an end note or as such in a footnote. It's like the "by the way" type of information.

Now, on the other hand, to maybe clarify, as I had last year when I taught international environmental law, um, to a lawyer, um, he, I think felt that he struck gold when I said this, because I got footnotes that were practically an essay on its own. So, in that regard, I do not mean that the, the footnotes or the end notes become its own separate thing. It should be very, very short. It should be very short, as on the contrary, see, or for further support on this, see similarly, those type of things. So, not the reference as in where you get, actually, let's say, the text or the information from, but really what else you have read about it, which further contributes to this particular issue.

>> I see. You said something. I don't know if it was to interject in the webinar, if it was perhaps a mistake. Are there any, besides the question I now just got on, um, besides the question I now just got on the chat, is there any other questions that you have on the basis of what I just discussed?

>> Okay, let me quickly read the question. Key doctrines such as imminence, threshold for armed attack, legality of anticipatory self-defense are contested within state practice and scholarship. How should I address these inter-interdeterminies in my analysis? Should I present them neutrally, choose one doctrinal interpretation, or critically evaluate them to show how Operation Midnight Hammer exposes tension between legal principle and geopolitical practice?

I'm just going to note this down as I'm going to open the whiteboard. And I just want to make sure that I remember them. And in the meantime, if you have any other questions such as this one, um, feel free to add it as well to the chat.

>> I, I have a simple question.

>> Okay.

>> When's the due date? I've seen two different dates. The 21st.

>> Okay. There are two different dates. How, where, let's start with where did you find the two different dates? And then I'm going to tell you which one it is.

>> Uh, I guess one's in the syllabus.

>> Yeah, that, uh, 28th.

>> But the class ends on the 21st.

>> Yes. Oh, yes. So, let me, um, I know, so I know that the process is, um, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the process is second. Um, yes, sorry, my computer just froze. Um, the process is, I think, normally that you would have the due date on the end of the class. Um, I'm personally against those because I feel that it just requires a lot from you, and, uh, it's December, y'all. We all have, if not holidays. Um, if you are in any type of corporate setting, December is madness because you have closings and deadlines and everything there. So, I decided to give a grace week extra. So, that's where the grace week extra comes in. If it works best for you to say, "Nah, I don't want this over the holidays," feel free to end send it in at December 21st. But I just feel by teaching in the Christmas periods, let's put it that way, in the December period, um, it's just, it's a lot. So, I, I just decided not to do that and just say, "I add, I ask, and I can, I add a week." You can add a week. Why, you know? So, we add a week, as I'm not reviewing anything anyway in the end of December. Um, okay. So, that, and, and also, it should be correct on Moodle. If it's not, let me know. Um, as far as I know, I, I let them know, but, uh, sometimes it automatically switches back to the end of the course. So, let me know if there's a particular problem there.

I saw, and I'm going to go on, in a second, on the question of really more on imminence and how to deal with that. But then I saw, I have a quick question about AI and writing, and I do find it a very important one also, because I flagged it, um, in both of my comments, um, and it's, um, I am the, um, well, the one to blame for the AI policy, is I'm the one who wrote it. So, I definitely feel passionate about this aspect. So, Christina, go ahead.

>> Yes. Um, you may hear sound, so just apologies on that in advance. Um, I'm a teacher myself, so I'm very strongly passionate about AI and I oppose AI in every shape or form. I'm a language teacher, so it is big on for me, right? Um, I check my writing every single time. Even though I'm writing it myself, and like, um, on my Google Doc and everything, I check my writing with ZeroGPT and GPTZero, which is what I use with my students too, um, just to see, right? Because it always brings up something, and I have proven that even when it's my own writing, it even, like, to a certain extent, I have to write badly in order for it to say it's humanly written. Like, whenever I write a sentence, like, literally my own, I'm just writing and typing away, cuz I haven't got flagged or anything. All of my responses have been really good. Um, so this is not even for a situation that I have had or anything. It's just a genuine concern. Um, like, I write a sentence, and it's like, so good. Like, my brain, not to gas me up, but like, I, I can write really well, and it immediately flags it as like, too formal writing, or like, very structured. Then I'm like, "Duh, like, that's what I'm trying to do." So, sometimes I get frustrated, cuz it flags things that are my own, and I can't understand why I have to kind of write wrong for it to be like, considered humanly written, or why do I have to have some, some grammar mistakes for it to be humanly written? Like, I have gotten to that point where I delete a word or something, or I delete a letter, or have to change words multiple times from "however" to "nonetheless" or to "moreover," because it keeps flagging it. And I, and I try and find words that like, adapt to something that is not, um, commonly used, but like, it's still my work. So, I don't know. This is more of a rant of frustration of what to do, um, because I'm generally concerned for like, essay writing and how it's like, and like, um, checked. Yeah, that's my question.

>> Yeah. No, good, good question. And, um, let me know also, because I've been thinking about it, but I just, like, our, our distance education doesn't really allow me to be thinking about it if we should just do a general webinar or separate course or whatever on writing, um, in the context of AI, because I feel like it, it fits in each and every course, and we all deal with it differently. So, let me explain why I, um, came up with the policy, perhaps, and how I use it. I, I cannot speak for others, right? Because I mean, I don't know how others use it. So, with me, it came very much from the fact that, um, I knew students, and for instance, I had a student from India who was, um, very well-versed on a particular conflict situation in its country, and then I would get a paperback, and then I felt, "This is like first-year law student material." That's weird, because I, you speak about this very eloquently in class. Um, and so I put it through, and then it came back at 100% AI. And mind you, that was three years ago, when we were still in the beginning phase of it. Very frankly, the detection tools are useful and not useful. They were very useful two, three years ago, considering at that moment the detection tool companies, or the tech companies behind it, really saw that their money was well placed with universities, with the subscription, considering that we really need those. But in my humble opinion, I think they very fast learned that there's more to earn with them with actually offering subscription to students to humanize their text. Um, and as a result, the detection tools became a lot less reliable. So, I, in principle, use them only when there are, for me, already, let's call it, a Christmas tree going off with lights and thinking, "This is very weird when I read it." So, I don't put them standard through any of those type of text. Similarly with plagiarism, and I, you get the benefit of the doubt with me. I assume, I hope everyone does their own work. We don't copy stuff literally from the books, right? Because at the end, you only got yourself with it, right? Um, you want to learn, you need to, afterwards, you don't have the book with you. You need to be able to use those skills. So, the idea with the AI policy was very much to both for us to to think about how differently would we need to teach, how differently would you need to learn, because we process information differently. I feel very old now while saying this, but in the beginning, when Wikipedia came around, when I was in law school, we had those questions, right? Because then we would get the essays where people copied stuff literally from Wikipedia, so we said, "Okay, apparently we need to change your type of thinking." So, for me, the key really lies to critical thinking skills. I am okay of you using AI tools to the support of your work. They can be wonderful tools if you have a solid basic of a basis of understanding of the topic, and you use it to refine your thinking. You can even use it to question yourself about a particular topic, to say, "What question should I be asking? What have I missed here?" In that, you can see it as a type of learning buddy, or something. All I'm asking is the same as you would if you would read literature, for instance, that you tell me that you tell me of this process, not just to justify what you do, but also, I feel it helps us as lecturers as well on how learning is innovating and what that means for us, and how we should teach, and the materials we should provide, and the exercises we should do, precisely because there's so little interaction for you guys to talk to us. So, it gives us a wealth of information there as well. So, for me, AI tools can be used to support. Now, do I think they're amazing? I mean, they're, they can be great. Do I think they're massively biased? 100% sure. I mean, the majority of them are written by the middle-aged white men, right? So, I mean, in that, there's a massive bias involved in it, you know, and particularly when we talk about the issues that we care about, that is very contextual. When I talk about the environment, when I talk about inequality, equity, everything, um, I'm highly skeptical about AI tools, and I also know that it could come up with an article that they say that I have written, which about which I would feel, "Well, I definitely should be read writing that because it sounds interesting because it gathers information and it makes it." That's true. Now, my goal is that you're able to write and work independently, then you use this tool only to support your research and writing, and then you show that to me. So, that's, if that's what Christina, what you said you were doing, um, I, I would, I hope that you don't come across it in any of the other courses. But with me, I would spare you the energy of putting it constantly through it, because I feel that's a lot of extra effort and stress that you don't need. Instead, you know, do a double check on how you go and engage on how you do your writing and research process, because too often I see students following too closely the words of what scholars say, because they go immediately from reading the literature text and writing them their arguments, and inevitably you end up copying phrases, context, structure, right? So, I think it comes down to really how do you do research and how do you do writing, and sometimes when things are flagged by AI, it might also be that it's actually not because you use AI tools, but maybe because you're staying a little bit too close to the lines or the thoughts or the arguments from a particular scholar, and it picks that up as well. So, it really comes down to those critical thinking type of skills.

>> Thiago.

>> Yes, thank you. Uh, just really quickly, uh, I have not been either. Uh, I do use AI and I disclose it, uh, to help me with the verification of my writing. So, uh, this is not an issue, and I always disclose it in the end of the references. But this thing about bias, just to be clear, I mean, uh, you probably saw that I have some strong opinions about, uh, some of the the subjects, and, uh, at least, and when we had the discussion last webinar, and some other things, not just in this, uh, class particularly, but I do have some strong opinions related to conflict. So, just to, this is not, uh, to be flagged. It is, uh, literally the, the opinion of a person maybe with a different background. All right.

>> No, just to clarify, me saying with a bias is not that I feel like someone is out of line. It means more, um, let me see, because I don't have one with relation to use. Well, let's say with use of bellum, if I would say, um, um, if I would ask an AI to, for instance, um, um, write me an essay on, uh, the, can I give a good example on the legality of the Russian invasion in in Ukraine? The bias, what I mean, would be that it leaves out nuances and would say, for instance, "Well, Russia's invasion is 100% illegal," or "Russia's inv, Russ, Russia's invasion is 100% legal." Right? So, with me, the bias, I mean, is that algorithms are fed on the basis of, you know, the dual language learning process, and all the data that they're processing, but the majority of the data that they're processing are often unfortunately only based in English, not in any other languages. So, that is already a massive bias that result, and a majority of those are still more common from Western countries. So, as a result, the bias that I mean, that comes from it, is because these tools often learn from a more particular subset of text. So, as a result, they say, "That's the mainstream approach," or "That's the opinion it should have." So, that's what I mean when I say when you look for nuances, or when you look for for context, you might find it in AI tools, but it might, it would require you to be a critical, independent thinker and ask those follow-up questions and criticize and critique and read carefully what it produces. So, for me, if I read an opinion, let's say I disagree with you. I don't remember out of my mind right now what you wrote, but let's say I completely disagree with you. Let's say you say that, um, the invasion in Ukraine was, it was illegal, and I think it was legal. That's not a bias. That's just your opinion. And for me, what I care about in an essay is if you explain it. It's not because I said so, or because Putin said so, or because the US said no. It's a matter of whether do you have a solid reasoning? Do you follow the step-by-step approach? Do you rely on references? How do you do that? How do you come to that analysis? Right? So, my bias, when I talk about bias, it's not an opinion. It's about that information is presented as neutral, and it isn't neutral. It is actually colored, and it's biased because on the base of what it learned from. Now, and I'm not saying AI is that always. I don't want to sound as too skeptic, um, but in general, I am cynical to everything I read, any scholar, any text I read, I check. So, who are you affiliated with? What is the journal you're publishing in? Are you not actually saying you're an independent scholar, but you might be at the same time also an advisor for the particular country? It doesn't mean that your opinion is not true, but it does mean that I need to do that extra step of verification, right? So, I'm saying the same as I would check where does the information come from, who writes this, what's the affiliation, is there a bias? With AI tools, we don't know. So, I just want you to question it from the get-go. That's, that's what I meant with bias. I hope that that clarifies it.

>> Yeah, no, it's clear. To be honest, I think I was not very polemic in this course. I was more in human rights and the other, the other one. So, but it's okay. It's well explained, well received, and well noted. Thank you very much.

>> Perfect. You're welcome. Okay. Um, are there any other shorter questions or questions related to the AI writing, referencing, critical thinking aspect of the essay?

>> References are not counted in the word count. Correct?

>> I am double, I do something different in each of my courses. I don't know why. Um, okay. So, I said it does include footnotes, and that's the lesson learned that I have from last year with my lawyer student who added a thousand words in the footnotes. So, but it's 1,400 to 700 words. But what you can do in terms of referencing is, of course, you can have the abbreviated forms, and then you can include the full list of references, which is then all the information you would need, and that part is not included. Okay. But in principle, if you feel very fast that you're struggling with the word count and that you're going to go over it, it means that you have not delimited your topic enough. It means that you need to see on how you can further narrow the topic. And, and, and that's what I meant when I gave the example that sometimes footnotes or even including in the sociological references of seeing compare and contrast can be an easy way to show sort of the rich and depth of your research without you having to go extensively of explaining all those compare and contrast moments.

Any other general question on referencing, writing, AI? All right. So, let's, I always need to see where I do it. Open my beloved whiteboard, if I can find. I normally can find it very fast. Today. Oh, there you are. Okay, so we had a question in the chat of how do I deal, and I'm just going to type them here. Wait. Limits, um, threshold for armed attack, um, legality, anticipatory, anticipatory self-defense, and then I don't understand my further writing, but I think it was on state practice, customary law, and I'm just going to add court cases to it. All right.

So, um, I'm not going to make life easy and set out completely on how to do it on this particular topic for this essay because that would be not fair to the others that chosen the other topics. But just to explain you on how it works. So, this is the idea, right? That you start from, let's say, you start from, uh, let's just do it here. I'll put a circle there. Here you're going to start, and you're going to start from your particular situation, or let's just call it the strikes. Right? That's what we know. That's literally all that we have that we know. That's what we choose. Then we got to, and, and think there are two steps here. The first step is figuring this out. So, the first step is really you figuring out. So, um, I mean, maybe you can, you can add it yourself in the chat if you have an idea. What do we need to know? What are the type of questions we need to ask ourselves for the context that matters? Now, with any strikes, anything that we need to know, cuz that's really what it boils down to.

>> I think someone wanted to intervene, and I interrupted. So, with strikes, what we need to know is, of course, our general questions, right? Is the, yes. So, where indeed did it take place? Why? By whom? Against whom? And then, of course, is it a non-state actor? And if so, which territory did it took place? Right? Because we might not know that either. Might be at the border. It makes life complex. Remember, remember our webinar on the strikes of the US on the drugs that are, um, getting more complex per minute, um, as you might, if you are following the US news in that regard. Um, so, it is against whom is it an unsaid actor? Which territory? Where did it take place? By, why? By whom? Now, all these type of questions, it's really setting those that factual situation. And there are, um, for instance, some of you, the stars, the the strikes, um, with regards to, for instance, the Hooties and the commercial vessels and everything. So, then you would ask even more questions, right? It are commercial vessels, who commercial vessels are it? What do we know about it? Has anyone claimed it? What happened here? Um, and then also, of course, there is like, uh, we go to type of force, type of force use is then a similar question that we would ask ourselves as well. And that's, this is that pre-setting that is key. And, and this is where I mean is that not always do scholars in their review of whatever happens really go in deep into that context. They would just be very brief and say, "Well, you know, for instance, Israel launched this missile strike on there, and it says this happened." For instance, um, but verify it, check it. Well, what else do we know about it? Is that what both sides of to the conflict claim? You know, is there any disputed information there? Um, to, and also then it's also the question of when becomes relevant, and a question of when versus over what period of time is is relevant in regards, because we sometimes have several smaller attacks that we need to take together. Um, but it also becomes relevant in the terms of when we then go to the response of the retaliating state. Right? So, we have an initial use of force, which is then deemed yes or no as being an armed attack, and we have a state responding to it. Well, does it matter if it's the next day versus if it's five years later? Right? So, those type of questions play a role. And then the more you get clear as of the beginning, the more detailed your analysis is going to be, because you're going to have a lot of moments where you say, "Well, wait a minute, how is this okay?" So, that's a general, um, that's a general aspect that you then need to know. So, you would then always then need to go to the use of force as in, we go to article 24, and I'm not going to repeat everything into this as we, we have done that exercise before, but I always want to make sure that we are aware of that step. If we then come to the, because the question that was asked in the chat really focuses more on self-defense, I just want to make sure that we don't make the similar mistake as I feel sometimes scholars make and skipping that first step. So, we would say there is an initial violation of article 24, and therefore we're now are going to check, is article 51 into play? And that's really where then that argument is going to start. Now, there we're going to do another context, context, context, context analysis, right? Because now it's not the initial action, it's actually the response where we're going to do the entire questionnaire again. What happened? What did play take place? By whom, against whom? Um, what type of force was used? Over what period of time did it take place? Is it still ongoing? Was it a singular attack? Is it a large operation? Are there other states involved? Uh, which can also be the case, you know, like what is happening here? And then immediately we're going to do, let's say, we have a very complex situation where there are multiple states, etc., involved as well. You got to make your life easy, and you're going to delimmit your research by just focusing on one particular aspect of that of a situation, for instance, and you just say, "Well, I'm only going to check actually of the response of the victim state, leaving everyone out of it. I know that they're there, I know that it is relevant, I don't got time for that. Not doing that." So, you leave all of those out, right? And then we need to go there to the armed attack. And that's where indeed all those questions come in. So, that's where life gets so messy when you read the scholarly work, because you need to deduct whether what is the approach that they're upholding, if they are seeing that it includes anticipatory self-defense and preemptive self-defense or not. And that's where you really got to figure out when you read a scholar, uh, scholar's work, and it's focusing on a situation, for instance, of anticipatory, preemptive self-defense, that when they're arguing this, how are they defining armed attack? Now, if you follow issue, rule, application, conclusion, you will go then. So, the issue is, was there an armed attack? Right? Then the rule, and that's where the things come in where you argue the difference in it. Well, then the rule is, what is a division, what is the definition for armed attack? Well, you would start first, then what do we know from the ICJ, right? From the International Court of Justice, it gave various case law where, and I'm, I'm not going to relist them here, but it would say, we have this one, that one, and then we have that one. Then we're going to have similarly, the, the, um, sorry, um, um, the Caroline incident, as well, that gives us further backing on the elements of imminence also on it. And all that is in the rule. So, I mean, the rule is a lot more than just the rule. The rule is a massive key aspect in use of bellum course, because that's where you set out practically the minority opinion, the majority opinion, let's putting it very simple, right? If you can really deviate between that, because sometimes we just have 20 different things, and it's up to you to do what it is, and you come to the conclusion how you be defined armed attack, and then of course, it's based on reasons, right? So, that's where the element, for instance, of anticipatory, preemptive self-defense come in. And with the majority or the minority opinion, it could be here you have their state practice, um, and, um, it could be that, for instance, with preemptive self-defense, or the argument of it, or with non-state actors, the argument would be, "Well, we have the 9/11, um, um, president." But it wasn't really followed that much afterwards, that argument. So, some scholars are arguing that it's a precedent in isolation, others saying it's the start of the standard practice. So, right? So, that's, that's the type of reasoning that all comes into that rule section, and that's where you come then in this, and that's what I'm saying is this for me is, um, can I, can I do something with it? This is key, how you define it, where you say, as we say in, in, um, um, um, in Spanish, like I've told you all, there is here about the issue of armed attack, and thus, therefore, henceforth, I conclude that we should define armed attack as this, and this is the lens, the parameters that I'm going to use as of now for my analysis. And that red part is key for me, because it triples down with its effect, because as that defines how we see armed attack, immediately it influences what is the legitimate aim of the self-defense, and thus it colors in what is necessary and what is proportionate in a response to repel that armed attack. Right? So, that's, that's why I need to know this, and that's why it's more than merely citing what is the standard rule, but you got to show you're aware of the nuances, and as I said, on how the law moves in different directions, and this is the line that I'm choosing, and where I'm sticking to, and that's the part where I say, I'm fine with whatever you choose. What I want to see, I want you to deliberate it. I want you to show me that you understand the nuances, and I want you to base yourself on reasons. And therefore, that's also what I'm saying is that you all might look at the very same situation, but because under that red line, you might define the armed attack or the issue slightly differently, your element of necessity and proportionality might be different, and as a result, you might not agree with what a scholar says, because it might be a scholar who is very much pro preemptive self-defense, or absolutely against it. And, and as I've seen in your reasoning, particularly with those that focus on issue two, it's 100% true that the ICJ is very conservative for it, and there's a logic in it why a rule-based order is important. But at the other hand, it's also very much the reality that we cannot expect states to be sitting ducks. Right? So, it's in that nuance. That's why I'm saying is that both from a legal point of view, really makes sense there. And the argument very much more comes in if you're focusing, for instance, on the element of imminence. Um, there you really need to argue along the lines of, and, um, just as a tip, you need to use and read the ICJ advisory opinion on nuclear weapons to really understand. So, what difference does it make that the threat of the use of force is potentially nuclear weapons? And thus, does that change the extent to which how we see the imminence needed for an armed attack? Are we going to expect, because of the type of threats that we're talking about, that preemptive self-defense is permitted or not? I'm not saying it does, but it is the argument put forward, for instance, by the US in this situation of saying, "Because of the threat being that grave, and that it could really put the existence of a state into play, if nuclear weapons are used, does that permit, does that change the parameters of self-defense?" And thus, what you need to do, the types of armed attack that is necessary in order for you to be able to invoke their this particular article. Okay? So, that's the type of reasoning that is required here. That's where state practice, customary law, court cases come in. It could be, um, think of, um, let's say, with a reference back to the Iraqi invasion, um, in, uh, you must all remember it, like I have seen weapons of mass destruction, that key moment with Colin Powell, with having those pictures that were not actually weapons of mass destruction, but that afterwards, it led, for instance, both in the Netherlands and in the UK, who both have given their, uh, consent and agreement to participate to that invasion. It led in both situations that both the parliament and the courts had decided under international law that there was no reason for that invasion. So, that's how court cases could also come in, right? Because you can actually have a national court or a parliament afterwards in an agreement.

Coming to a conclusion. We were wrong of supporting this particular military operation. We were wrong of maybe actually saying yes, this country has a right to self-defense based on the facts we have now. And that's also where you can use it, right? Saying yes, there was initial support, but afterwards it was withdrawn, for instance.

Okay. So that's how you can use practice or custom or court cases, and that always happens in that rule section of Iraq because then in the application, life is simple. That you apply the parameters that you've set, that you've concluded, and then of course, that's where your contextual analysis takes place because all the facts that you discovered at the beginning, you're going to apply that lens, that parameters to it and come to a conclusion. Was there an armed attack? Yes or no? And if there was an armed attack, then we move on. Was it a necessary? Was it a legitimate response? Was it proportionate? etc., etc.

Okay. So, that's the type of reasoning and contextual analysis um that I would want you to do. Are there any questions on that? Um I don't remember who asked the question. And I don't know if this clarified it also >> and thanks. Yes, thank you for clarifying it. I think you have unpacked it very succinctly. So I have a better understanding now of how to approach it. I appreciate. >> Perfect. >> Yes. >> Perfect.

Um in that regard also in terms of formatting um I suggest in a first version besides but I'm very visual oriented to maybe for yourself draw it out on a picture of really trying to figure everything out maybe work it out first for yourself in this very boring way of the step-by-step analysis and the Iraq method of doing all those different steps to make sure you checked everything but if afterwards you feel like nah I found a better way of writing this I want to rewrite it more as a position type of paper that's totally fine right but just make sure that all the elements are still identifiable you know you can come therefore the rule or or how we define armed attack as ta da da da right you do not need to say rule you know double point and then give that explanation you can do it if you want to, but feel free to choose that format of writing that comes most natural to you and that you feel works best for you.

>> Okay. I just have a quick followup uh prof if I may. >> Of course. >> Yes. I I just wanted to find out like now how should my analysis address the symmetry whereby for example currently US attacks Iran based on the threat of nuclear weapons. But now simultaneously um there's been um uh a direction from from the top saying now they'll also begin exploring their own nuclear testing and kind of a a um which kind of like contradicting or kind of I don't know like they okay let me just say they are portraying its own uter testing and deterrent posture as lawful and stabilizing even though Now this two um seems to contradict each other terms of self-defense narratives. So I wanted to bring it because this is not just onedimensional but now we are bring it also back home. So like when you're saying we need to also to contrast and and compare. So I was just a bit puzzled how to bring this other now narrative around the same issue of nuclear use of nuclear weapons and the other side now with this now we are beginning with nuclear testing and other countries are doing it but other sides don't do it now and the other side say okay we are so I'm I'm just in that space I wanted to find out in a justifiable and a critical thinking manner uh what would be the best approach with your guidance ma'am thank here.

>> Yeah. So, in the two minutes that is left for me, I don't think I can settle the rat race of nuclear weapons and how to navigate that process, right? But, but very short, very short. Um, in regards to your essay, you're going to make your life simple and ignore whatever happened afterwards. So you're going to be very clear in setting that context on what you're focusing on. Okay? And that would be the alleged let's say use of development of Iran of the nuclear weapons and the testing and etc that they got further which resulted then into the strikes by the US and then you're going to put an end date to that. Is it highly contradictory in terms that they now also said, "Oh my gosh, nuclear weapons is great and we need to do more with it." >> 100%. 100%. But that's a separate element, right? That's a separate element. And I think it's in general the argument also within an IHL and everything. It's same with cluster and everything. You follow any logic of IHL, you would never use these type of weapons at all. So we would should not even be having that conversation. So it's more a geopolitical power struggle thing than per se this aspect. So but you're gonna you're gonna make your life easy and you can even add I know stuff happened afterwards but we're not talking about that.

>> Okay. >> Okay. And then and if if it would be in another situation well you can think of a followup. Let's say now that it will happen more mon if then the US would in actually start developing it further then the question would become well quit proquo could then Iran or another state actually claim an argument of self-defense but that's a very different situation right now you're just focusing on what originally triggered this argument of self-defense by the US from when to when were those strikes what were those strikes and that is where we're looking at and only that.

>> Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. >> You're welcome. Any other questions that are still pending? Okay. So, in that um we get to the end of this webinar as um it's 11 o'clock at with me in Charlotte. Um, if you have any questions that come up for in regards there for the essay, um, do not hesitate to write me. Make sure if you do not want to focus on one of the four situations that are included in the syllabus, but instead you want to focus on a different situation, write me sooner than later. because I really would hate as I've had it in the past a couple of times that people approach me just before the deadline and they forgot to write me and started writing the essay already and I had to tell them I'm sorry this is purely IHL this is not you bell you need to change the topic I do not want to cause a panic attack just before Christmas so write me on time okay um in addition um I think it's very fair to say that as of the 19th of December. My two very active boys have holidays as well. So I cannot guarantee that I respond on time. So if you have any pertinent question with regards to the essay, I would ask you to stick to 21st of December maximum to make sure that you still got a response back. Okay? Um in case of anything else, write me respond also to the feedback. Read the feedback. If you feel you don't get it or you feel like you're off track on the base of the reflections you have done now or the reflection you have already submitted but you just learned you did it wrong, you can write me to see if if you really feel you need to resubmit it or something because you understood it completely incorrectly. Okay. Um it's a give and take here and a mutual conversation here. Okay. Best of luck with the essays and I look forward to seeing what you all have. Thank you.