That hadnt existed before. In the end, ultimately, you say this doesnt count. This doesnt is that because ultimately it hasnt changed International Law . I think there was a moment when a grotian moment could have formed. And it would have been if we were more careful in trying to define the owls we were trying to promote. Truman was very careful in trying to define very narrow rules. Bush was not so. So basically the theory he could have had that i think would have worked, and it may still be the theory down the line, is an analogy to the laws of neutrality. In a formal manner . Gave a speech in 2010 at the American Society of International Law were he propounded the very near greuel that we are designed to give countries a lot of comfort. The problem was that when we were not actually obeying by those rules. Only use the predators not drawn as a last resort distinguish between the terrorists and the civilians minimize any collateral damage, the family members are other people. And then because of mr. Snowden who want to talk about again, we have learned that the casualties of an expensive without their permission we have gone from an area where they gave us permission to operate to the entire country using these predator drones, and we have not been following, in their opinion, the rule that the Legal Adviser said out. So, you know, there was another moment where we could have had a version. You are kind of a lefty. Kind of a lefty. Anyway, but i want to put you on the spot you for a second. Aviano had a line of the youre not just making value judgments . These are doctrines. These are things that i liken these at things that are not right. That is solely the problem with any new doctrine. They come with their own baggage. You say i am a lefty. And actually known in academia a practical minded person. Policy conversations. Yupik issues. Anyway. We might have cleared it up. Exactly. You always have to ask that. If someone comes in with the new series. Nuremberg, that created a force for good. Humanity. The Continental Shelf sheriffs and seems to have created new energy, you know, and about capitalism and the spreading of markets and the economy in economic growth. You know, you can if you are not getting over the environmental about you can probably say that has been a force for good in the world and a force for growth. Space travel similarly there is not allowed to argue. It is after the fact. Relaxing people. And, you know things are not really that complicity. For a sample. And the world of space law we put geode synchronous satellite on top of countries, and they stay there at all times. Spying doing research whenever theyre doing, but it is valuable real estate. And so if you were someone the rates down extend down the stratosphere. Case and where it began as the moment. Spaces, the upper levels at a fixed wing aircraft could fly. Now, that probably does not make sense today because the Virgin Atlantic flights will be going into outer space with their plans and coming back down, but that is where it was. Anyway, a lot of these there were people who were not happy with the change but it made sense. It happened to crystallize. It did not protest. I suppose the answer is the second case study which i also think would have been one that in the liberal would have loved to have seen. Talk about that one. This is a humanitarian. All right. So humanitarian intervention in the old days countries like vietnam tried to stop the killing fields in cambodia by intervening. The world said that vietnam, you should never done that maybe its potential. You cant do intervention unless the Security Council says you can come in they have the problem of the detail. Right now were back almost where we were with the cold war. Everything that we want to do it then syria. So 1999. The albanians. 500,000 of them took to the mountains. Started to decrease. That probably would have all frozen and night and it would have been genocide. We forget that ultimately may be 10,000 people were killed because 500,000 abbottabad were saved by the humanitarian intervention but it would have been and genocide. We will call it a potential genocide. The United States goes to Security Councils botox to its allies, russia, china led to a Security Council resolution authorizing humanitarian intervention to save these people. Russia was a historic ally. Nader says he will do it anyway. When they do, the countries have all these Different Reasons and rationales. Some say we are doing it for humanitarian reasons. The u. K. Says this is our right to save people. International law allows this. International law before that would have justified that. The United States was afraid of a new humanitarian intervention role because it could be so easily abused. The u. S. Said that this is a new law. It is generous. It is a one time deal. Special factors never to be repeated. Dont take this. After words almost every country in the world applauded this. On the road to independence. The u. N. Was able to move in, a story with a good ending. The u. S. Secretary general says what to make of this, what happens when there is another rwanda. I we going to save their lives and the outlaws . How do we make sense of this . So he said it was a situation that the called unlawful by legitimate. And i am pulling my hair out. As a lawyer. I suppose what it could have been his it justifies the means. And this side of the penalty should be, and there is no penalty. Israel those in argentina and kidnaps the nazi was irresponsible for a lot of the holocaust hiding in argentina. They do that without argentinas permission. They complain that they violated their sovereignty. The Security Council says, we continue but then it is silent on what happened. So is zero bows and prosecutes eichmann. Convicted. Hong, and no one complained. Is that what theyre talking about . And nice job by the way. But it was not comfortable. So the group was convened in canada the International Committee on sovereignty and intervention. They came up with a new concept as some of you may have heard of other responsibility to protect doctrine. It has this cool Bumper Sticker freeze. Part two t. So the responsibility to protect doctrine. What they said is when the Security Council was paralyzed sometimes countries are allowed to act alone if they act with the right intentions, if they get out of there as soon as they can if it is not a land grab. So they created this new doctrine, and the doctrine after 1999 could a blend into the moment. It was right to do so. The problem was well, to problems, three. One problem is that the u. S. Was not comfortable with it. So they have not announced a doctrine with clear guidelines. The second problem is the timing. The United States in beast and almost every country said it was unlawful. Thats the thing. Remember the claim that the september 11th that was never found, the yellowcake could sit not exist but there was a simultaneous claim that we had to do it to stop Saddam Hussein from killing more people because he had killed millions. On both sides. So and chemical weapons. The only legitimate argument. It was not accepted. The world cup that this was just his war. He had lied his own country into it and there were very unhappy with it. There are afraid now. Going to be abused. Russia in votes responsibly to protect and it goes to the south of georgia. If we have to do this. This is a land grab, totally abusive. Because of all that the Security Council and General Assembly finally passed resolutions that endorsed kaj instead of saying, yes you can do it, your other factors they said it sees this as a political principle that you can never intervene with the Security Council authorization. So they took of the energy out and it at that fact. The beginning of the war in syria starting to come and and make this complicated almost everyone in the cabinet was ready to intervene. It talked about the legality. And this is an interesting point. A lot of people think when it comes to use of force countries dont really care and sometimes they do act outside of what is the awful but i had this other but. This is my last one. Foreign policy in a crisis which is all about of the times when president s and other foreign leaders decide not to intervene are not to use force because the Legal Advisers still in that it is unlawful which are stores that most people dont know. We only had a moment when Something Like some lawful. A Legal Adviser comes up with the rationale. But in the u. K. They literally have this debate on parliament. They had a commission coming hearings, they had the former Legal Adviser of the United Kingdom and had resigned in protest of the 2003 invasion saying that it was unlawful. And by a very narrow margin the parliament said, we think it would be unlawful to intervene. We will not allow you to do that the u. S. Is saying, well, maybe we have to ask our congress for permission since u. S. To parliament. Our congress is going to say no. So of a sudden because the illegality was so murky it made it much more difficult. And the story they you just described explains why all of this actually matters. Had that been a true moment in definition this would be a very different conversation about syrian intervention during that. Some people will tell you that all of this talk was just a pretext. It was too messy to go when. Going to be the new country government going to turn into egypt and libya which has not turned up that well. So all of these other reasons as well but the discussion is about law which is what was interesting. To any of you have questions . I can keep going. I think it is just me. We have a microphone coming. A lot of it comes out. This seems to me that maybe it is over simplistic. Takes decades in the hands when you need everybody on board but it is a moment if the u. S. Needs it to happen now. Tammy you know, if that was like no romberg pretty back three blackandwhite. It starts to seem just out of convenience. To the point where you say oh, the Security Council meets to sign off on it. Again, you see that it is these major, traditional powers. Is this a descriptive concept or normative . And my answer would be that customary International Law even when it forms slowly under the traditional elements as this concept of the International Court of justice and other tribunals to recognize that certain countries count more especially effective. Think about savannah. You have the big giants heard of elephants that come by. That is the u. S. And the u. K. And russia and china. And then the herd of elephants are going to leave footprints in the path. And then theyre going to have a pass that is not as customary with International Law. Power by repetition. The zero countries dont have the footprint. That was always recognized and even when it took a long time. There is another aspect of this, and that is that countries can opt out of customary International Law by being a persistent objector. So with treaties, if you dont sign it you are not bound. With customary International Law when you see other countries doing something at the time is lawful and you say no, its not, you have to protest. I suppose youre right the persistent objector rule does not work so well when things are sped up, but in some respects the United States may think this is a great idea, but governments are trying to be much more cautious about this. They know that there is treaty that they can stay out of to protect there interest. If it grows slowly the next demonstration can lori about that or five down the road, but if it grows within a Single Administration and they have to be concerned about this. There will probably be pushed back from the very government that you think will be in favor of this concept because there will be afraid of the implications. Ultimately i am giving definition to it. Im telling people about something in countries that they have ignored. A point you make is true. The way customary International Law forms they are the pioneers that generally generate the new law. Great question. We need a microphone over year. It seems that trying to said it is suddenly a rise in customary law that is a fatal oxymoron and i am wondering why when you were developing your theory you did not simply say that this is a whole new third branch or foundation of International Law i saw the statement of an accepted International Norm that would have avoided the oxymoron the still stayed with what i think you are trying to say. In new bottles. This is why this story was so important to me. And i was writing the book and thinking about the very question and you ask him that was when the light bulb went off. Customary International Law crystallizes. That is the term everyone uses. We think of it as this millennial or 100 your process. And what i learned is a you can recrystallize gemstones within one year. If you can do that to gemstones and still use the concept of crystallization why not with customary International Law would be my rapid crystallization. Other questions . Lets talk about and lord snowdon who has my vote, by the way, for a person of the year not that that matters. This moment over the last nine to ten months or so has changed our understanding of how state actors be a total another. And many we now know are violating International Law and violating the basic understanding of sovereignty and it is not just the u. S. Now it is coming up that everyone is tapping Angela Marcos own. It is a metaphor. It is not true. What is your theory about what is going on here . Related to this expected to be smuggled out on the airplane by the bolivian president the United States forced to land. And polybius said, violated our territorial integrity. The president s aircraft is like our country. Bnl was not happy. There were reluctantly i dont know what we promised them. Bolivia was mad. We will take this to the International Court of justice. You know, new international moment. The other thing usually the discourse between countries is all caps secret. So they practiced. Its hard to find some times. President ial statements and press releases and so forth but now we know all the cable traffic that has been going on. We know that much more. But it is the same sort. So i think the fact that all of this stuff has to bunt suddenly been brought to light is going to cause all sorts of just shock waves through the international system. It could be that we see new law created by it. Countries my say to the United States we want a memorandum of understanding that you pledge and because of this event which is technologically and politically driven it could be the formation of some new law some transformative moments. Do you see the International Law community in the circles in which to operate talking about this . Yes, but they are talking to faced. The countries are upset and want to do something about it. Yet as you pointed out it was not just tapped by obama but have the other countries in the world that have the technology. Everybody as part of National Security is doing a lot of this. We dont want it done to us, but we want to keep being able to do it to you. In general i would say that the internet could create a new moment because so much is happening. The ability to intercept a communication in just a real question of what we are willing to live with. Do we have an expectation of privacy anymore . If that changes for constitutional purposes we have a moment, but it could be one that is just broader than the u. S. Other questions . As this book been received . I no there is something on the back this is this is not as safe book. My good friend. Your good friend. I am glad he did that. He said the very provocative thing. The book has been launched. All of the Major Players at the International Tribunals were still there. At think theyre going to start setting this in their decision. Then we went to washington d. C. Sean murphy, a u. S. Member of the International Law commission, a u. N. Body that is codifying International Law has a debate. He said that the commission has taken a the study of the formations as the first time ever. And in the draft study paragraph one is the citation. There are debating and discussing. Sean actually liked most of what i was saying. He had some quibbles. That is on youtube. Then i went up to new york. We got to have our discussion. His major point was the one that you were making in the audience. He thought that the moments were undemocratic and basically customary International Law was a bit undemocratic. I am not going back far enough. I am basically describing something that he thinks is probably a tactic. Many of the things in there including the importance of customer National Lawyer endorsed. We have a great discussion. Basically the book is hot right now. I hope the general audience that is out there wa