July 22, 2025 • 28 mins
Inside Geneva brings you our second summer profile, with international lawyer Dapo Akande.
“I’m one of those boring people who actually always wanted to be a lawyer. I’m not sure exactly what the motivation was when I was younger, but I think I was very argumentative as a child. And everyone used to say, ‘You should be a lawyer,’” says Akande.
As a child in Nigeria, he also took a keen interest in world affairs.
“I was brought up in Nigeria and my parents had the BBC World Service on the whole time when I was growing up. So that engendered in me a big interest in world affairs. And when I saw that there was an area of law that actually dealt with international affairs, I thought, yes, that’s the bit I’m interested in.”
Once he’d qualified, he assisted on cases at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where he saw how the court peacefully resolved disputes between United Nations member states, including one between his native Nigeria and neighbouring Cameroon.
“This source of real tension, which had occasionally led to flashpoints and the use of force between those two countries, was resolved on the basis of the judgment by the ICJ. I think that’s an amazing achievement and it’s made all the more amazing by the fact that we actually don’t know much about it. If there had been a war, we’d know all about it.”
Now, Akande is a candidate to be a judge on the ICJ – at a time, he believes, when international law is more important than ever.
“It’s clearly the case that, in far too many cases, international law is disregarded. I think that’s true. There are many instances where the law is not followed and you only have to turn on the news to see that. What I do know is that international law is increasingly seen as relevant, and actions today are judged more often by reference to international law than they were in the past.”
Join host Imogen Foulkes in conversation with Dapo Akande on Inside Geneva.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Fowlkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's programme….
Speaker 3 (00:21):
I think I was very argumentative as a child and
everyone used to say you shouldbe a lawyer.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
The International Court of Justice is the
principal judicial organ of theUnited Nations.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
I always had this interest in international
affairs and when I saw thatthere was an area of law that
actually dealt withinternational affairs, I thought
, yes, that's the bit that I'mthat I'm interested in.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
The court's role is to settle, in accordance with
international law, legaldisputes submitted to it by
states.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
It's clearly the case that in far too many cases,
international law is disregarded.
I think that is true.
There are many instances wherethe law is not followed, and you
only have to turn on the newsto see that.
What I do know is that,actually, international law is
(01:18):
increasingly regarded asrelevant and actions are judged
more nowadays by reference tointernational law than was the
case before.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes, and today webring you the second in our
series of summer profiles where,amid all the talk about
international law, who'srespecting it, who's violating
it and if it's even reallyeffective, I'm delighted to
welcome someone who has devotedhis career to international law
and is now a candidate to be ajudge on the world's top court,
(01:59):
the International Court ofJustice.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
I'm Dapo Akande.
I am Professor of InternationalLaw at the University of Oxford
.
I'm also a member of theInternational Law Commission of
the United Nations and I'm apractising barrister in London.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Very, very legal, then I'm always curious.
I have a few lawyers in myfamily.
What's the motivation?
What did you want to be whenyou were growing up?
Was it always I'm going to be alawyer, or did your dad want
you to be a lawyer?
What was the motivation?
Speaker 3 (02:34):
I'm one of these boring people that I actually
always wanted to be a lawyer.
I'm not sure exactly what themotivation was when I was
younger, but I think I was veryargumentative as a child and
everyone used to say you shouldbe a lawyer and I kind of stuck
and so that's what I wanted tobe.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
So tell me about your childhood then, because you
were Nigerian and British yougrew up in Nigeria.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
That's right.
I was born and brought up inNigeria.
I grew up in a city calledIbadan, which is in the
southwest of Nigeria.
My family I actually am from afamily of academics, so both my
parents, my mother and my fatherwere academics in different
disciplines, and so I guess thatwas the sort of what I was
(03:24):
exposed to as a child.
I studied law in Nigeria, didmy first law degree in Nigeria,
and then I moved to the UK,initially just to do graduate
work and I thought I'd be therefor a couple of years.
But 30 something years laterI'm still there.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yes, this does happen , doesn't it when you move from
one country or continent toanother.
But you're specialised ininternational law.
Was that always the drive?
You didn't want to be, you know, a criminal defence lawyer or a
divorce lawyer.
You wanted to work ininternational law.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
So I wouldn't say that from the first day of law
school I wanted to work ininternational, because I
probably didn't know that itexisted.
But from the moment when Ifirst studied international law
I knew that that was what Iwanted to do, and that's for a
number of reasons.
First of all, because itcombined this interest in law,
which I was really interested in, with an interest in
(04:24):
international affairs which Ihad actually right from
childhood.
As I said, I was brought up inNigeria and my parents had the
BBC World Service on the wholetime when I was growing up this
is London, the whole time when Iwas growing up, this is London.
(04:49):
So that engendered in me a biginterest in world affairs.
I like to say that when I readthe newspapers you know in those
days where we still read thepaper copy I would start from
the back sports pages, of course.
You start there, and then Iwould immediately go to the
middle you know the foreign news, world news and only after that
would I look at the front.
So I always had this interestin international affairs and
(05:10):
when I saw that there was anarea of law that actually dealt
with international affairs, Ithought, yes, that's the bit
that I'm interested in.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
When you said to yourself that's the bit I'm
interested in.
How did you view it?
Did you see it as a mechanismto right terrible wrongs or as a
kind of neutral internationalarbitration?
Because people have differentviews about what international
law is for and whether it.
(05:40):
Frankly, nowadays peoplesuggest it's not really there
for anything.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
Yeah, yeah, you know, the interesting thing is, I
(06:09):
think my views then are probablystill my views now in terms of
why I thought it was an areathat I really wanted to go into
do actually as a frameworkwithin which states and, by
extension, people in states,could sort of live together on
the basis of a framework thatprovides predictability,
stability and justice.
So it's a combination of thethings that you that you said.
It's sort of a way in which wecan move away a bit from the
chaos that might ensue if wedon't have rules that might
(06:32):
provide that predictability andstability, but also a way in
which, actually, you providerules that provide for justice.
You know, that's part of what alegal framework is about.
So that was part of theattraction at the time and still
is.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Frankly, Over the course of your career, then this
has been your work.
You've advised the UN, you'veadvised the International
Committee of the Red Cross.
Have you got cases that reallystand out?
You could tell our listenerslook, this is somewhere where
(07:08):
this body of law, ofinternational law, really made a
difference.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
So I can talk about some things which maybe I've
been involved in, sometimes at avery peripheral level, but also
maybe a little bit more moredeeply.
So when I moved to to the UKand I I was studying as a
student, the very first job thatI did after I graduated was I
(07:32):
worked as an assistant tosomeone who actually then became
the first woman judge at theInternational Court of Justice
and the first woman president ofthe ICJ, and she she was, as it
happens, actually counsel forNigeria in a case before the
International Court of Justice.
It was a case between Nigeriaand Cameroon.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
The Bakasi Peninsula sparked conflict between Nigeria
and Cameroon due to rich oilreserves Over the past decade.
The cry of the displaced Bakasipeople is that they've been
living like refugees in theirown country.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Which dealt with a dispute concerning the entire
land boundary between Nigeriaand Cameroon.
It's a very long boundary, adispute around the Bakasi
Peninsula, and then a maritimedispute as well, which, for
those countries, was really abig deal.
You know, these are twocountries that had had this
dispute, had actually existedfor a very long time, and she
(08:30):
asked me to be her assistant onthat case and I also worked.
This is on the Nigerian side.
It led to a judgment eventuallyby the International Court of
Justice settling this boundarydispute between Nigeria and
Cameroon.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
The International Court of Justice ruled in
Cameroon's favour in 2002.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Nigeria agreed to cede the territory in a phased
process, avoiding war, nigeria,which had then in fact been in
administration of the BakasiPeninsula.
The court found that actuallythat peninsula belonged to
Cameroon.
This had been a source of greattension between those two
states but, believe it or not,actually the two countries
(09:15):
agreed to abide by the judgment.
There was UN mediation, undemarcation of the boundary, the
relevant territories weretransferred by one state to the
other, and this source of realtension, which had occasionally
actually led to flashpoints anduses of force between those two
countries, was resolved on thebasis of this judgment of the
(09:38):
International Court of Justice.
I think that's an amazingachievement and it's made all
the more amazing by the factthat actually we don't know that
much about it.
If there'd been a war, we wouldknow all about it.
And with hindsight we might havesaid, oh, if only they could
have sat down you know, talk tosome lawyers like yourself and
(10:01):
resolved this peacefully andsaved a lot of lives like
yourself and resolved thispeacefully and saved a lot of
lives, exactly, exactly, and sosometimes, actually, the work is
, you know, something that's notnecessarily seen it's the
disputes that are avoided, thedisputes that are resolved, you
know.
So those are things which areyou know, which are.
(10:24):
It's part of what internationallaw does.
It's part of this thing ofproviding a framework within
which states act and people canresolve their disputes on the
basis of this kind of framework.
Does it always work?
Not always, but when it works,do we always see that it works?
Not always, but actually a lotof the time it does, in fact, it
(10:47):
does in fact work.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Are you more interested in the ICJ framework,
which discusses cases betweencountries, than, say, the
International Criminal Court,which looks at individuals?
Speaker 3 (11:05):
So you know for myself as an international
lawyer, I like to describemyself as a generalist
international lawyer, whichmeans working across different
areas of international law and,as it happens, actually I've
done work on the ICJ, as you say, dispute between states, but
I've also done work on theInternational Criminal Court and
other aspects of internationalcriminal law.
(11:26):
I've done work on issues to dowith human rights.
At one point I was an advisorto the African Union on a
question which has now in factcome back to the ICC, about
prosecutions of heads of states,at a time when African states
were very exercised about thisissue and I was involved in
(11:50):
providing some advice on howthose issues might be dealt with
at that time.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
When I was starting my career, but it's something
that stands out in my mind still.
I met a young woman from Bosniawho was a refugee in
Switzerland, very, very smart,been accepted to the best high
school, academic high schoolhere, and she wanted to be a
lawyer so she could go and workat the Hague.
(12:16):
Because of what she andparticularly what she had
witnessed her parents go throughin Bosnia, how do you see that?
Do you think that's a goodmotivation?
I'm just thinking the ICC.
Do you see the importance ofpeople being able to see they
have an avenue for justice, foraccountability?
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Absolutely.
I mean I think that that's aninnate desire, actually that
many that human beings just havea desire for justice and I
think that serves a number ofpurposes.
Or prosecutions forinternational crimes serve a
number of purposes.
So it fulfills that desire forjustice.
(13:00):
There's some evidence that, atleast in some cases, it provides
some degree of deterrence maybenot enough, but at least in
some cases it does.
It provides a record of thingsthat have happened and very
often the victims want to havethat acknowledged and they want
to have that record.
(13:21):
And I think all of these thingsare important.
So you know I'm a strongsupporter of international
criminal justice.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no
jurisdiction no legitimacy andno authority.
People have a sense now thatinternational law is
increasingly disregarded andsome are saying actually it just
gets in the way People need todo what they need to do.
You've heard this phrase, I'msure to defend themselves.
(13:55):
What would you say to that?
Speaker 3 (13:57):
So the first point about international law being
increasingly disregarded?
I'm sure to defend themselves.
What would you say to that?
So the first point aboutinternational law being
increasingly disregarded it'sclearly the case that in far too
many cases international law isdisregarded.
I think that is true.
There are many instances wherethe law is not followed and you
only have to turn on the news tosee that.
But it's interesting.
You use the word increasinglydisregarded and you know there's
(14:19):
a point here as to whether thesituation is better or worse
than what it was in the past,and sometimes there's a sense
that it's worse now.
I don't know what the actualanswer is, but what I do know is
that actually, internationallaw is increasingly regarded as
relevant and actions are judgedmore nowadays by reference to
(14:42):
international law than was thecase before.
So that in and of itselfactually gives one the sense
that it's increasinglydisregarded, because we test
things by reference tointernational law today far more
than we did in the past.
I can tell that even just frommy own life.
So it's interesting.
(15:03):
We started this podcast and Isaid I was an international
lawyer and I didn't explain whatthat meant In the past.
If I talked to a neighbor and Isaid I'm an international
lawyer.
I'm pretty sure the nextquestion would have been what is
that?
What do you do?
Today?
It's never asked.
What is often asked is peopleask me very specific and
(15:24):
detailed questions aboutinternational law.
Everyone knows aboutinternational law.
Everyone has a view about howit applies to particular cases,
and so I think today we have farmore emphasis on whether
actions are compliant withinternational law than we did in
the past.
That's a good thing, but ofcourse, what it also means is
(15:46):
that the cases where there areviolations it's a lot more
obvious and everyone knows.
But you know, that doesn't takeaway from the fact that we have
far too many violations than weshould have.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
We start in the United States, where Donald
Trump has denounced theInternational Criminal Court
accusing it of In anunprecedented move, the Trump
administration has sanctionedfour judges of the International
Criminal Court over what itcalls baseless and politicised
targeting of America and Israel.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
What about what we've been seeing and I mean I will
have to mention the UnitedStates here that the current
administration appears not to beparticularly interested in
laying within this particularset of rules and okay, never
(16:38):
joined the InternationalCriminal Court but has now
sanctioned its staff and is notparticularly happy with the
International Court of Justiceeither.
How would you persuade?
Speaker 3 (17:06):
a superpower that actually you know what, we're
not a threat to you.
It's worth joining.
But on your question of howwould you persuade a superpower
that you may need internationallaw, one of the most interesting
things that I have done in thelast couple of years was I was
invited to brief the SecurityCouncil, the United Nations
(17:28):
Security Council, a couple ofyears ago it was June 2022.
A couple of years ago, it wasJune 2022.
And the topic that the SecurityCouncil was discussing was
strengthening accountability forviolations of international law
.
That was the topic, and I wasone of the briefers, together
with the then President of theInternational Court of Justice
(17:49):
and the UN Human RightsCommissioner all of us talking
about strengtheningaccountability for violations of
international law.
This was a few months after thefull-scale invasion by Russia
of Ukraine, so that was reallywhat a lot of the states were
talking about.
What I found most interestingactually about that meeting was
(18:11):
that in the meeting, the Russianambassador and this is all on
the public record spent quite abit of time actually talking
about the disregard by otherstates the US and the UK.
He picked out, in particular,their disregard for decisions of
(18:31):
international courts.
So he talked about thethen-sanctioning of the ICC and
the UK's disregard of theInternational Court of Justice
opinion on Chagos.
And what I found reallyinteresting was that he wasn't
talking to those states.
He was talking to the otherstates.
He was basically trying to say,look, we're not the only ones
(18:53):
who are accused of not complyingwith international law.
And at that moment and thereality was, the things that he
was saying at that point in timewere actually true in terms of
those specific allegations.
And so, even as a matter offoreign policy, the idea that
states were at least regarded asnot complying with decisions of
(19:15):
these international courts wasused in a way that enabled other
states to say, well, this nowgives us a reason also not to
comply.
So, just as a matter ofself-interest, actually, the
undermining of the system andthe failure to comply with
decisions all it does is that itactually just gives an excuse
(19:37):
for others in other cases alsoto not comply in ways which
might actually be adverse to theinterests of even the big
players.
That's the point that I'mtrying to make, and so sometimes
, even for the strong and evensometimes for the, for the big
states, it's important that theybe seen to be complying,
(20:00):
because otherwise they will findit very difficult to get the
support of others when they wantto say that these other states
are not complying well, that'sabsolutely right.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I mean, we see that here in in Geneva all the time,
the argument about doublestandards and it has huge
resonance, particularly withinthe UN Human Rights Council, I
think particularly now with theconflict in the Middle East.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
This is Rafah tents among rubble, the site that
Israel's defence ministerproposed to place a so-called
humanitarian city.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
Washington DC last night.
Guess who's coming to dinner?
Man wanted for war crimes.
Proposes war ally for NobelPeace Prize.
It's nominating you for thepeace prize.
Israel is being accused ofcommitting genocide in the UN's
top court.
This case is being tried in theInternational Court of Justice,
which is the UN's top court.
This case is being tried in theInternational Court of Justice,
(20:56):
which is the UN's main judicialbody.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
People are beginning to despair that any plea for
respect for international lawhas resonance anymore.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Yeah, absolutely, and this is exactly the point.
It's this point about doublestandards, right?
So the idea that it is possibleto pick and choose, to say,
well, on some occasions we wantsome countries to respect
international law, but on otheroccasions, either we're not
going to respect or we'rewilling to condone violations of
international law, thosestances actually have
(21:35):
consequences.
And so, even when it is in aparticular case, it might be
suggested that well, it's not inour interest in this particular
case to comply with those rules.
The failure to comply hasconsequences in other cases as
well.
And I think this is what we'reseeing in, you know, in the
examples that you've given andother examples.
(21:55):
That's what we're, that's whatwe're seeing.
And you know, most countrieswill, at some point or another,
want to make the argument thatother states need to abide by
international law, and thatargument will only work if they
themselves are willing to abideby it and are to make a stand
(22:18):
for international law in caseswhen it's been violated.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
You probably know Mirjana Spoljaric, the president
of the International Committeeof the Red Cross.
I talked to her two or threeweeks ago and she said this also
to the UN Security Council, apoint she makes when people say
international law is getting inthe way of things.
She says you will save allsorts of things money,
(22:44):
reconstruction money.
Your peace will be moresustainable.
Yes, fight your war, but staywithin the rules.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
Well, I would absolutely support that, and
that's particularly the casewith regard to the law of armed
conflict.
You know, it seems almostparadoxical to think that wars
have rules and that there is lawin war.
But there's not just a moralcase actually for having rules
in war, but there's also thecase that you know, as she said,
(23:17):
that it actually is going tomake the peace more sustainable.
And what we see, and you seethis all across the world now it
actually just also resonateswith this sort of human
consciousness, and I think thisis the point that I make about
international law being seen asmuch more relevant.
Now.
One of the things thatinternational law actually does
(23:40):
is it taps into thatconsciousness and it's now a
sort of expression of it as well, and I think it's something
that humanity as a whole iscalling for increasingly today.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
And you were a candidate to be a judge on the
International Court of Justice.
It's a pretty big job.
Obviously, you're eminentlyexperienced for it.
We know this.
Why do you want this to be yournext step?
Speaker 3 (24:07):
You know it's interesting.
It goes back to what we weretalking about earlier.
It's actually, for me, the samemotivation that I had when I
decided that I wanted to be aninternational lawyer in the
first place.
It's, first of all, helping todevelop and helping to sustain
(24:28):
that framework of rules thatprovide for predictability,
stability and justice.
So one of the things that thecourt does is that, of course,
it clarifies the rules ofinternational law, and that's
important.
And then the second thing isthat task of peaceful settlement
of disputes.
You know, that's what the courtis there for.
(24:50):
It's there for states to beable to settle their disputes
peacefully, and that's hugelyimportant and it would really be
an honour to be able tocontribute to that.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
And that brings us to the end of this edition of
Inside Geneva.
My thanks to internationallawyer Dapo Akande for his time
and that fascinating interview.
Join us again in two weekswhere we'll be hearing from
Rachel Cummings of Save theChildren direct from her posting
in Gaza.
Speaker 5 (25:27):
We are driven by humanity to others and
alleviating the suffering ofchildren, wherever that is to
alleviate that suffering and,you know, to give children hope
because they are living throughtheir worst lives.
They're living through the mostdesperate of times and, of
course, they are innocentthroughout it.
(25:48):
They are children who have theright to a childhood that
episode will be out on August5th.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Don't miss it.
And a reminder our profilesfrom last summer are all still
available.
Hear from Olaf Valverde abouthis job trying to find
treatments for neglecteddiseases, or Antonia Mulvey
about her legal work seekingjustice for the most vulnerable
in conflict-affected regions.
(26:15):
You can hear those and morewherever you get your podcasts.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
(26:35):
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Fowlkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's programme….
Speaker 3 (00:21):
I think I was very argumentative as a child and
everyone used to say you shouldbe a lawyer.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
The International Court of Justice is the
principal judicial organ of theUnited Nations.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
I always had this interest in international
affairs and when I saw thatthere was an area of law that
actually dealt withinternational affairs, I thought
, yes, that's the bit that I'mthat I'm interested in.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
The court's role is to settle, in accordance with
international law, legaldisputes submitted to it by
states.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
It's clearly the case that in far too many cases,
international law is disregarded.
I think that is true.
There are many instances wherethe law is not followed, and you
only have to turn on the newsto see that.
What I do know is that,actually, international law is
(01:18):
increasingly regarded asrelevant and actions are judged
more nowadays by reference tointernational law than was the
case before.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes, and today webring you the second in our
series of summer profiles where,amid all the talk about
international law, who'srespecting it, who's violating
it and if it's even reallyeffective, I'm delighted to
welcome someone who has devotedhis career to international law
and is now a candidate to be ajudge on the world's top court,
(01:59):
the International Court ofJustice.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
I'm Dapo Akande.
I am Professor of InternationalLaw at the University of Oxford
.
I'm also a member of theInternational Law Commission of
the United Nations and I'm apractising barrister in London.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Very, very legal, then I'm always curious.
I have a few lawyers in myfamily.
What's the motivation?
What did you want to be whenyou were growing up?
Was it always I'm going to be alawyer, or did your dad want
you to be a lawyer?
What was the motivation?
Speaker 3 (02:34):
I'm one of these boring people that I actually
always wanted to be a lawyer.
I'm not sure exactly what themotivation was when I was
younger, but I think I was veryargumentative as a child and
everyone used to say you shouldbe a lawyer and I kind of stuck
and so that's what I wanted tobe.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
So tell me about your childhood then, because you
were Nigerian and British yougrew up in Nigeria.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
That's right.
I was born and brought up inNigeria.
I grew up in a city calledIbadan, which is in the
southwest of Nigeria.
My family I actually am from afamily of academics, so both my
parents, my mother and my fatherwere academics in different
disciplines, and so I guess thatwas the sort of what I was
(03:24):
exposed to as a child.
I studied law in Nigeria, didmy first law degree in Nigeria,
and then I moved to the UK,initially just to do graduate
work and I thought I'd be therefor a couple of years.
But 30 something years laterI'm still there.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yes, this does happen , doesn't it when you move from
one country or continent toanother.
But you're specialised ininternational law.
Was that always the drive?
You didn't want to be, you know, a criminal defence lawyer or a
divorce lawyer.
You wanted to work ininternational law.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
So I wouldn't say that from the first day of law
school I wanted to work ininternational, because I
probably didn't know that itexisted.
But from the moment when Ifirst studied international law
I knew that that was what Iwanted to do, and that's for a
number of reasons.
First of all, because itcombined this interest in law,
which I was really interested in, with an interest in
(04:24):
international affairs which Ihad actually right from
childhood.
As I said, I was brought up inNigeria and my parents had the
BBC World Service on the wholetime when I was growing up this
is London, the whole time when Iwas growing up, this is London.
(04:49):
So that engendered in me a biginterest in world affairs.
I like to say that when I readthe newspapers you know in those
days where we still read thepaper copy I would start from
the back sports pages, of course.
You start there, and then Iwould immediately go to the
middle you know the foreign news, world news and only after that
would I look at the front.
So I always had this interestin international affairs and
(05:10):
when I saw that there was anarea of law that actually dealt
with international affairs, Ithought, yes, that's the bit
that I'm interested in.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
When you said to yourself that's the bit I'm
interested in.
How did you view it?
Did you see it as a mechanismto right terrible wrongs or as a
kind of neutral internationalarbitration?
Because people have differentviews about what international
law is for and whether it.
(05:40):
Frankly, nowadays peoplesuggest it's not really there
for anything.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
Yeah, yeah, you know, the interesting thing is, I
(06:09):
think my views then are probablystill my views now in terms of
why I thought it was an areathat I really wanted to go into
do actually as a frameworkwithin which states and, by
extension, people in states,could sort of live together on
the basis of a framework thatprovides predictability,
stability and justice.
So it's a combination of thethings that you that you said.
It's sort of a way in which wecan move away a bit from the
chaos that might ensue if wedon't have rules that might
(06:32):
provide that predictability andstability, but also a way in
which, actually, you providerules that provide for justice.
You know, that's part of what alegal framework is about.
So that was part of theattraction at the time and still
is.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Frankly, Over the course of your career, then this
has been your work.
You've advised the UN, you'veadvised the International
Committee of the Red Cross.
Have you got cases that reallystand out?
You could tell our listenerslook, this is somewhere where
(07:08):
this body of law, ofinternational law, really made a
difference.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
So I can talk about some things which maybe I've
been involved in, sometimes at avery peripheral level, but also
maybe a little bit more moredeeply.
So when I moved to to the UKand I I was studying as a
student, the very first job thatI did after I graduated was I
(07:32):
worked as an assistant tosomeone who actually then became
the first woman judge at theInternational Court of Justice
and the first woman president ofthe ICJ, and she she was, as it
happens, actually counsel forNigeria in a case before the
International Court of Justice.
It was a case between Nigeriaand Cameroon.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
The Bakasi Peninsula sparked conflict between Nigeria
and Cameroon due to rich oilreserves Over the past decade.
The cry of the displaced Bakasipeople is that they've been
living like refugees in theirown country.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Which dealt with a dispute concerning the entire
land boundary between Nigeriaand Cameroon.
It's a very long boundary, adispute around the Bakasi
Peninsula, and then a maritimedispute as well, which, for
those countries, was really abig deal.
You know, these are twocountries that had had this
dispute, had actually existedfor a very long time, and she
(08:30):
asked me to be her assistant onthat case and I also worked.
This is on the Nigerian side.
It led to a judgment eventuallyby the International Court of
Justice settling this boundarydispute between Nigeria and
Cameroon.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
The International Court of Justice ruled in
Cameroon's favour in 2002.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Nigeria agreed to cede the territory in a phased
process, avoiding war, nigeria,which had then in fact been in
administration of the BakasiPeninsula.
The court found that actuallythat peninsula belonged to
Cameroon.
This had been a source of greattension between those two
states but, believe it or not,actually the two countries
(09:15):
agreed to abide by the judgment.
There was UN mediation, undemarcation of the boundary, the
relevant territories weretransferred by one state to the
other, and this source of realtension, which had occasionally
actually led to flashpoints anduses of force between those two
countries, was resolved on thebasis of this judgment of the
(09:38):
International Court of Justice.
I think that's an amazingachievement and it's made all
the more amazing by the factthat actually we don't know that
much about it.
If there'd been a war, we wouldknow all about it.
And with hindsight we might havesaid, oh, if only they could
have sat down you know, talk tosome lawyers like yourself and
(10:01):
resolved this peacefully andsaved a lot of lives like
yourself and resolved thispeacefully and saved a lot of
lives, exactly, exactly, and sosometimes, actually, the work is
, you know, something that's notnecessarily seen it's the
disputes that are avoided, thedisputes that are resolved, you
know.
So those are things which areyou know, which are.
(10:24):
It's part of what internationallaw does.
It's part of this thing ofproviding a framework within
which states act and people canresolve their disputes on the
basis of this kind of framework.
Does it always work?
Not always, but when it works,do we always see that it works?
Not always, but actually a lotof the time it does, in fact, it
(10:47):
does in fact work.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Are you more interested in the ICJ framework,
which discusses cases betweencountries, than, say, the
International Criminal Court,which looks at individuals?
Speaker 3 (11:05):
So you know for myself as an international
lawyer, I like to describemyself as a generalist
international lawyer, whichmeans working across different
areas of international law and,as it happens, actually I've
done work on the ICJ, as you say, dispute between states, but
I've also done work on theInternational Criminal Court and
other aspects of internationalcriminal law.
(11:26):
I've done work on issues to dowith human rights.
At one point I was an advisorto the African Union on a
question which has now in factcome back to the ICC, about
prosecutions of heads of states,at a time when African states
were very exercised about thisissue and I was involved in
(11:50):
providing some advice on howthose issues might be dealt with
at that time.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
When I was starting my career, but it's something
that stands out in my mind still.
I met a young woman from Bosniawho was a refugee in
Switzerland, very, very smart,been accepted to the best high
school, academic high schoolhere, and she wanted to be a
lawyer so she could go and workat the Hague.
(12:16):
Because of what she andparticularly what she had
witnessed her parents go throughin Bosnia, how do you see that?
Do you think that's a goodmotivation?
I'm just thinking the ICC.
Do you see the importance ofpeople being able to see they
have an avenue for justice, foraccountability?
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Absolutely.
I mean I think that that's aninnate desire, actually that
many that human beings just havea desire for justice and I
think that serves a number ofpurposes.
Or prosecutions forinternational crimes serve a
number of purposes.
So it fulfills that desire forjustice.
(13:00):
There's some evidence that, atleast in some cases, it provides
some degree of deterrence maybenot enough, but at least in
some cases it does.
It provides a record of thingsthat have happened and very
often the victims want to havethat acknowledged and they want
to have that record.
(13:21):
And I think all of these thingsare important.
So you know I'm a strongsupporter of international
criminal justice.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no
jurisdiction no legitimacy andno authority.
People have a sense now thatinternational law is
increasingly disregarded andsome are saying actually it just
gets in the way People need todo what they need to do.
You've heard this phrase, I'msure to defend themselves.
(13:55):
What would you say to that?
Speaker 3 (13:57):
So the first point about international law being
increasingly disregarded?
I'm sure to defend themselves.
What would you say to that?
So the first point aboutinternational law being
increasingly disregarded it'sclearly the case that in far too
many cases international law isdisregarded.
I think that is true.
There are many instances wherethe law is not followed and you
only have to turn on the news tosee that.
But it's interesting.
You use the word increasinglydisregarded and you know there's
(14:19):
a point here as to whether thesituation is better or worse
than what it was in the past,and sometimes there's a sense
that it's worse now.
I don't know what the actualanswer is, but what I do know is
that actually, internationallaw is increasingly regarded as
relevant and actions are judgedmore nowadays by reference to
(14:42):
international law than was thecase before.
So that in and of itselfactually gives one the sense
that it's increasinglydisregarded, because we test
things by reference tointernational law today far more
than we did in the past.
I can tell that even just frommy own life.
So it's interesting.
(15:03):
We started this podcast and Isaid I was an international
lawyer and I didn't explain whatthat meant In the past.
If I talked to a neighbor and Isaid I'm an international
lawyer.
I'm pretty sure the nextquestion would have been what is
that?
What do you do?
Today?
It's never asked.
What is often asked is peopleask me very specific and
(15:24):
detailed questions aboutinternational law.
Everyone knows aboutinternational law.
Everyone has a view about howit applies to particular cases,
and so I think today we have farmore emphasis on whether
actions are compliant withinternational law than we did in
the past.
That's a good thing, but ofcourse, what it also means is
(15:46):
that the cases where there areviolations it's a lot more
obvious and everyone knows.
But you know, that doesn't takeaway from the fact that we have
far too many violations than weshould have.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
We start in the United States, where Donald
Trump has denounced theInternational Criminal Court
accusing it of In anunprecedented move, the Trump
administration has sanctionedfour judges of the International
Criminal Court over what itcalls baseless and politicised
targeting of America and Israel.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
What about what we've been seeing and I mean I will
have to mention the UnitedStates here that the current
administration appears not to beparticularly interested in
laying within this particularset of rules and okay, never
(16:38):
joined the InternationalCriminal Court but has now
sanctioned its staff and is notparticularly happy with the
International Court of Justiceeither.
How would you persuade?
Speaker 3 (17:06):
a superpower that actually you know what, we're
not a threat to you.
It's worth joining.
But on your question of howwould you persuade a superpower
that you may need internationallaw, one of the most interesting
things that I have done in thelast couple of years was I was
invited to brief the SecurityCouncil, the United Nations
(17:28):
Security Council, a couple ofyears ago it was June 2022.
A couple of years ago, it wasJune 2022.
And the topic that the SecurityCouncil was discussing was
strengthening accountability forviolations of international law
.
That was the topic, and I wasone of the briefers, together
with the then President of theInternational Court of Justice
(17:49):
and the UN Human RightsCommissioner all of us talking
about strengtheningaccountability for violations of
international law.
This was a few months after thefull-scale invasion by Russia
of Ukraine, so that was reallywhat a lot of the states were
talking about.
What I found most interestingactually about that meeting was
(18:11):
that in the meeting, the Russianambassador and this is all on
the public record spent quite abit of time actually talking
about the disregard by otherstates the US and the UK.
He picked out, in particular,their disregard for decisions of
(18:31):
international courts.
So he talked about thethen-sanctioning of the ICC and
the UK's disregard of theInternational Court of Justice
opinion on Chagos.
And what I found reallyinteresting was that he wasn't
talking to those states.
He was talking to the otherstates.
He was basically trying to say,look, we're not the only ones
(18:53):
who are accused of not complyingwith international law.
And at that moment and thereality was, the things that he
was saying at that point in timewere actually true in terms of
those specific allegations.
And so, even as a matter offoreign policy, the idea that
states were at least regarded asnot complying with decisions of
(19:15):
these international courts wasused in a way that enabled other
states to say, well, this nowgives us a reason also not to
comply.
So, just as a matter ofself-interest, actually, the
undermining of the system andthe failure to comply with
decisions all it does is that itactually just gives an excuse
(19:37):
for others in other cases alsoto not comply in ways which
might actually be adverse to theinterests of even the big
players.
That's the point that I'mtrying to make, and so sometimes
, even for the strong and evensometimes for the, for the big
states, it's important that theybe seen to be complying,
(20:00):
because otherwise they will findit very difficult to get the
support of others when they wantto say that these other states
are not complying well, that'sabsolutely right.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I mean, we see that here in in Geneva all the time,
the argument about doublestandards and it has huge
resonance, particularly withinthe UN Human Rights Council, I
think particularly now with theconflict in the Middle East.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
This is Rafah tents among rubble, the site that
Israel's defence ministerproposed to place a so-called
humanitarian city.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
Washington DC last night.
Guess who's coming to dinner?
Man wanted for war crimes.
Proposes war ally for NobelPeace Prize.
It's nominating you for thepeace prize.
Israel is being accused ofcommitting genocide in the UN's
top court.
This case is being tried in theInternational Court of Justice,
which is the UN's top court.
This case is being tried in theInternational Court of Justice,
(20:56):
which is the UN's main judicialbody.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
People are beginning to despair that any plea for
respect for international lawhas resonance anymore.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Yeah, absolutely, and this is exactly the point.
It's this point about doublestandards, right?
So the idea that it is possibleto pick and choose, to say,
well, on some occasions we wantsome countries to respect
international law, but on otheroccasions, either we're not
going to respect or we'rewilling to condone violations of
international law, thosestances actually have
(21:35):
consequences.
And so, even when it is in aparticular case, it might be
suggested that well, it's not inour interest in this particular
case to comply with those rules.
The failure to comply hasconsequences in other cases as
well.
And I think this is what we'reseeing in, you know, in the
examples that you've given andother examples.
(21:55):
That's what we're, that's whatwe're seeing.
And you know, most countrieswill, at some point or another,
want to make the argument thatother states need to abide by
international law, and thatargument will only work if they
themselves are willing to abideby it and are to make a stand
(22:18):
for international law in caseswhen it's been violated.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
You probably know Mirjana Spoljaric, the president
of the International Committeeof the Red Cross.
I talked to her two or threeweeks ago and she said this also
to the UN Security Council, apoint she makes when people say
international law is getting inthe way of things.
She says you will save allsorts of things money,
(22:44):
reconstruction money.
Your peace will be moresustainable.
Yes, fight your war, but staywithin the rules.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
Well, I would absolutely support that, and
that's particularly the casewith regard to the law of armed
conflict.
You know, it seems almostparadoxical to think that wars
have rules and that there is lawin war.
But there's not just a moralcase actually for having rules
in war, but there's also thecase that you know, as she said,
(23:17):
that it actually is going tomake the peace more sustainable.
And what we see, and you seethis all across the world now it
actually just also resonateswith this sort of human
consciousness, and I think thisis the point that I make about
international law being seen asmuch more relevant.
Now.
One of the things thatinternational law actually does
(23:40):
is it taps into thatconsciousness and it's now a
sort of expression of it as well, and I think it's something
that humanity as a whole iscalling for increasingly today.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
And you were a candidate to be a judge on the
International Court of Justice.
It's a pretty big job.
Obviously, you're eminentlyexperienced for it.
We know this.
Why do you want this to be yournext step?
Speaker 3 (24:07):
You know it's interesting.
It goes back to what we weretalking about earlier.
It's actually, for me, the samemotivation that I had when I
decided that I wanted to be aninternational lawyer in the
first place.
It's, first of all, helping todevelop and helping to sustain
(24:28):
that framework of rules thatprovide for predictability,
stability and justice.
So one of the things that thecourt does is that, of course,
it clarifies the rules ofinternational law, and that's
important.
And then the second thing isthat task of peaceful settlement
of disputes.
You know, that's what the courtis there for.
(24:50):
It's there for states to beable to settle their disputes
peacefully, and that's hugelyimportant and it would really be
an honour to be able tocontribute to that.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
And that brings us to the end of this edition of
Inside Geneva.
My thanks to internationallawyer Dapo Akande for his time
and that fascinating interview.
Join us again in two weekswhere we'll be hearing from
Rachel Cummings of Save theChildren direct from her posting
in Gaza.
Speaker 5 (25:27):
We are driven by humanity to others and
alleviating the suffering ofchildren, wherever that is to
alleviate that suffering and,you know, to give children hope
because they are living throughtheir worst lives.
They're living through the mostdesperate of times and, of
course, they are innocentthroughout it.
(25:48):
They are children who have theright to a childhood that
episode will be out on August5th.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Don't miss it.
And a reminder our profilesfrom last summer are all still
available.
Hear from Olaf Valverde abouthis job trying to find
treatments for neglecteddiseases, or Antonia Mulvey
about her legal work seekingjustice for the most vulnerable
in conflict-affected regions.
(26:15):
You can hear those and morewherever you get your podcasts.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
(26:35):
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.