I assume this is a diktat from Bari Weiss.

Still probably the highlight of my career!

The talk is kindly co-sponsored by the Faculty of Law. It will be recorded but not live-streamed.

(9) If the US really believes its self-defence and armed conflict claims, it should make the case, not offer cursory and confused statements like Kelly's. I won't be holding my breath.

(8) Killing the individuals on the boat was murder. A state with jurisdiction over the killings -- such as one that applies passive personality jurisdiction to the crime of murder and had a national on board -- is entitled to prosecute any of the perpetrators in its domestic courts.

(7) The killings were unlawful under IHRL because they were neither proportionate (the traffickers did not pose an imminent threat to life) nor necessary (the US admits it attacked the boat to send a message to traffickers, not because it could not be interdicted and boarded).

(6) Because the attack on the boat did not take place as part of an armed conflict, the US cannot invoke IHL rules permitting lethal force against combatants or civilians directly participating in hostilities to justify the killings. The killings were governed by IHRL.

(5) As I tweeted yesterday, there is no coherent argument that the attack on the boat was governed by IHL. Although it is conceivable that a state could be engaged in a NIAC with a drug-trafficking organization, nothing indicates that this boat was connected to such a NIAC.

(4) Even if a state did have a right of individual self-defence agains the boat, the US could not attack the boat in collective self-defence unless the state with the individual right requested US assistance. The ICJ made that requirement clear in the Nicaragua case.

(3) Because no state, not even one affected by drug trafficking, had an individual right of self-defence against the boat, the US had no legal right to attack the boat in "collective self-defence." The latter depends on the former.

(2) Similarly, the US is not entitled to use of force in self-defence to protect its "national interests," no matter how vital they might be. Again: self-defence is permissible only in response to an armed attack.

(1) Drug trafficking is not an "armed attack" that gives rise to the right of self-defence, no matter how much harm it might cause to a state's population. Indeed, drug trafficking is neither an "attack" nor "armed." This is not controversial.

Here is Kelly's statement: the attack was in “in the collective self-defense of other nations who have long suffered due to the narcotics trafficking and violent cartel activities of such organizations... [and] was fully consistent with the law of armed conflict.”

If you're interested, you can find the ad at 4'11" in the video below. Apparently the room full of Madison Avenue ad men erupted with approval when the ad won the Clio, indicating the depth of mainstream opposition to the Vietnam War. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNjr...