Few topics generate more heat and less light than war crimes — and few topics deserve more careful philosophical attention right now. When a sitting American president has publicly threatened to destroy an entire civilization in a social media post and the language of “domestic terrorism” is being stretched to cover political opponents, the legal and moral categories we use to talk about what’s permissible in war are under extraordinary pressure. Today we’re asking: what counts as a war crime, who can commit one, and what happens when the people with power to commit them face no meaningful consequences?

In this episode, our co-hosts take up the full weight of the concept of “war crimes.” We trace the legal architecture of the Geneva Conventions and the contested terrain of just war theory, and press hard on the edges where the law goes murky: the moral equality of combatants, the “human shields” problem, the limits of international enforcement, the delicate distinctions drawn between “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” and all of the states and leaders implicated by this murkiness. As you’ll notice throughout the conversation, this is Jen’s wheelhouse — she is, after all, Director of the Center for Legal Studies at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, whose research centers on just war theory, international relations, and the ethics of war and peace — and her expertise gives the conversation a precision and urgency that the moment demands.

Grab a drink and join us as we try to tread carefully through the minefield-laden terrain of this unfortunately urgent topic.