{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/60518a52f69aa815d2dba41c/6669f5a6a033650012d73e45?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"Lawfare Daily: Is Complying with the Law of War a Defense to Genocide? ","description":"<p>On today’s episode,&nbsp;<em>Lawfare&nbsp;</em>General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Gabor Rona, Professor of Practice at Cardozo Law, and Natalie Orpett,&nbsp;<em>Lawfare</em>’s Executive Editor, to discuss their recent&nbsp;<em>Lawfare&nbsp;</em>piece examining whether a state pursuing an armed conflict in compliance with international humanitarian law could nonetheless violate the Genocide Convention. They discussed how these two areas of law intersect, their relevance to the ongoing proceedings over Israel’s conduct in Gaza before the International Court of Justice, and what the questions their analysis raises might mean for the future of accountability for genocide.</p><p>You can find their article, \"Can Armed Attacks That Comply With IHL Nonetheless Constitute Genocide?,\" online at&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-armed-attacks-that-comply-with-ihl-nonetheless-constitute-genocide\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-armed-attacks-that-comply-with-ihl-nonetheless-constitute-genocide</a>.</p><p>To receive ad-free podcasts, become a&nbsp;<em>Lawfare&nbsp;</em>Material Supporter at&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.patreon.com/lawfare\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">www.patreon.com/lawfare</a>. You can also support&nbsp;<em>Lawfare&nbsp;</em>by making a one-time donation<em>&nbsp;</em>at&nbsp;<a href=\"https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials</a>.</p>","author_name":"The Lawfare Institute"}