Transcription
across the UK on DAB+ on YouTube on your mobile [music] and on your side. This is talk. Uh, let's speak with Natasha Hoff, barrister, legal director, UK Lawyers for Israel. Natasha, nice to see you again. Great to speak.
Um, just give us a view if you would this this business of I I'm almost fed up with this uh phrase international law that it just seems to be this sort of catch-all go-to um camouflage that is used to thwart any other kind of view on anything at any time. And there are people, lawyers around the world in your profession, but a very different area of your profession, uh, that that almost have this sewn into their DNA. And I'm thinking of a bloke called Kia Starmer um as number one on that list and not Lord Hermer, a close number two. Um, what, what's what is the deal then? What specifically is the legality of the legality of international law?
Good afternoon.
>> Good afternoon, Ian. Always good to be with you. Uh, well, both very much of my profession as fellow members of the bar. Your words worry me greatly, Ian, because it suggests that the general patience with this quote international law uh is running out. And if that is as a result of these consistent misrepresentations of it, then the big loser here is international law and [snorts] us by extension, given the lack of credibility of the international legal order.
The bottom line is that these strikes by the United States and by Israel are legal in the context of the ongoing armed conflict that exists between Israel and Iran, primarily, that has been going on for decades. And so this big debate about the resort to force is being considered entirely the incorrect legal framework. It's being suggested that unless there was an immediate threat posed by Iran, then these strikes would have been unlawful. And that's not accurate. In fact, the president seemed to be using this as an additional explanation, a buttressing, if you will, of its acting of the United States acting in solidarity with Israel in its self-defense by talking about an imminent uh threat that this was a preemptive strike in response to. That can very well be an additional explanation. An action on that basis would also be lawful, given the kind of threat that the Iranian regime was posing, seeking to obtain nuclear weapons uh to carry out and make good on its threats to wipe Israel off of the map and to continue its targeting of Americans around the world. Let's not forget that since the Iranian revolution in 1979, hundreds of US personnel had been attacked and killed by this Islamic regime in Iran, either directly or through its proxies. So in that context, um, let's please talk about real international law and not the, if you will, fake international law, which is damaging the reputation of international law more broadly. And I think you're right, it's providing cover for this extremely dubious political posturing.
Indeed. And I think the mistake that that many people make is that when anybody criticizes international law in the sense that you have just brilliantly outlined, um, the takeaway some of these people have from that is that everybody's against international law. And of course, that isn't what is being debated here. I was chatting to a, the archetypal scenario, a fellow in a pub at the weekend who was talking about this as if America had just bombed the Isle of Wight for goodness sake, you know, uh, as if this happened in a vacuum of some kind. I said, well, there was already, I said, this didn't just happen, there was already a war going on there. And I couldn't seem to penetrate this, what I think is a sixth form point, the the obvious. This was already a war zone. The threats were already there. the death and the carnage racked up as a direct result of terrorist groups, whether we're talking Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, the greatest sponsor of terrorism on the planet. This was already in motion of their doing. Pretty easy stuff, right?
>> I think you give them a bit too much credit referring to this as uh as sixth form stuff. I mean, I've seen in the New York Times suggesting that a stronger state cannot attack a weaker state. That would be illegal uh in international law. I mean, that's primary school analysis.
>> And it is truly um concerning because the international legal order is important, and it is one that was developed by states to protect peace, stability, and international security. That is what is truly under threat through this manipulation, this warping, this misrepresentation of international law. Um, it's not the accurate presentation of the situation. And indeed, if if international law truly were to constrain democratic countries from exercising self-defense against the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, then I would agree with, you know, the man in the pub and the other detractors uh and say that this, this is a, a system that could very well be done away with. But that's not what we're dealing with.
What we are dealing with though is a prime minister that seems fairly wedded to this uh kind of international law um thing u in in the skewed sense that we discussed along with his chief adviser on these things. Um, Mr. Herma, who is uh equally as wedded to the the same rather sort of specious and dubious vacuous arguments around this. Um, let me just remind you, 2003, Kia Starmer, this is before he entered uh politics, of course, a lawyer at the time, just before Britain entered the Iraq war, described participation in armed conflict that violates international law as a precarious business that doesn't really mean it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, that statement. But uh, this has been his kind of guiding philosophy. It's almost as if those two words, international law, without any analysis of the specifics or the mechanics and the nuts and bolts behind the scenes. In fact, with this story, it's not even behind the scenes for goodness sake. It's there for all to see. Um, people have been living it in that region for a long, long time. But this is, this is where his philosophy is, isn't it? I mean, this is, I I don't think, you know, we will ever get him out of that because that's where his initial training is. Um, I didn't realize this until I spoke to Daniel Hannon a little earlier, apparently in his biography. Uh, he he made some statement akin to the comment that everything in his life is ultimately governed by international law. So, this is in the DNA of our prime minister. That's what we're dealing with.
>> Well, yes, but it comes back to this question of what the real international law is. and and if you're cast your mind back to a few hours ago in Prime Minister's Questions. I mean, the Prime Minister was asked um whether if rocket launchers were trained on British uh targets. This is rocket launchers in Iran, in Iran. Um, whether if that were the case, strikes on them would be um considered by the Prime Minister to be offensive or defensive. And and frankly, it was pretty plain that the Prime Minister wasn't able to answer the question. So this dancing on a head of a pin, which is, and I cannot stress this enough, not required by any um reasonable interpretation of international law um and can only therefore, I believe, emanate from the political calculations that this Prime Minister has taken. No doubt um the constituencies that he is pandering to uh in the UK are not the biggest fans of Israel or indeed uh a peaceful region in the Middle East uh and would not be supportive of action against the um foremost state sponsor of terror. And that's what seems to be driving this. I do think it is inexcusable uh to use this um amoral uh application of of of international law and this false application of it to seek to justify that it's not a get out of jail free card.
>> No, and it's, it's always used as if it is, and there's the problem. Just a final point, Natasha, your overarching view on on what is happening there at the moment. You know, it ain't over yet, to coin a phrase. Um, do you think everything's going in the right direction from what you can see? We've just had an update from the Pentagon, a press conference on on developments. Um, certainly the um strides that the US and Israel have been making against Iranian regime targets, against military targets, taking out these missile launchers, ballistic programs, some strikes we understand, against nuclear sites also um is is pretty extraordinary and uh exceptional. The rapidity with which air superiority has been established um is frankly history-making. Uh, and that probably indicates the meticulous planning uh and careful management that has gone into this. So on that basis, I think both the US and Israel are ahead of schedule, but who knows. Uh, war is a dangerous business. It should not be taken lightly. I think the big question is whether these strikes that were taken in defense of Western interests will facilitate the circumstances uh for the Iranian people to throw off their oppressors. And I think that's something we can all hope and pray for.
>> We certainly do. Natasha, great to have you on with us again. Thank you for your time. Natasha Hdorf, barrister, legal director at UK Lawyers for Israel. F it a hub.