Carolyn Beeler: Can you tell us more about Navi Pillay and the work that she is being recognized for today?

Iva Vukušić: She’s really a towering figure in international law. She has been involved in some of the most important situations, cases, trials since the 1990s. She served as a judge, adjudicating cases at the Tribunal for Rwanda, and sat on some really important decisions. So, this is really somebody who deserves such a recognition, is highly respected and she really is such a role model.

What did the Nobel Committee say today about why they chose her, and why they chose her now?

So, I think, the fact that they chose her is important symbolism, because the speech announcing this award was talking about courage, was talking about standing up for what is right for decades in these proceedings, in various institutions that concern war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide. There’s a lot of pressure on international judicial institutions, so it’s also, symbolically, an important way to show that the Nobel Committee, in this case, wants to support not only the person, but also the idea of accountability, of justice, of this universal approach to human rights and to protecting people all around the world — in a way that is equal, and not guided by double standards. That’s how I, and many of my colleagues, read this decision.

Pillay’s most recent work, at least the most recent work that made headlines, was her role as the judge who oversaw the UN Commission of Inquiry that concluded Israel committed genocide in Gaza. That is getting a lot of attention after today’s announcement. What do you see as the significance of her being recognized, given that work and given the state of international affairs today?

I think it reflects what is increasingly becoming a mainstream position, and the mainstream position is that the operation in Gaza, most likely, reached the level of genocide. I am aware that the conversation in the United States is different, due to political reasons and the political landscape, but in Europe, and generally in much of the rest of the world, there’s been quite a choir of voices that have analyzed the evidence, have analyzed the law and came out with that decision. Of course, we’re going to still see what judges at the International Court of Justice will say, because that’s a case that is underway here at The Hague, but there’s a significant body of scholars and analysts, and people who have really nothing to gain or lose by being political partisans — there’s no real reason for them to play politics. In that sense, there’s a recognition that the Commission of Inquiry was probably right in their finding. That’s at least what, among my colleagues and here at The Hague, is increasingly a very mainstream position.

Israel, of course, firmly denies this accusation of genocide. The Israeli Foreign Ministry had some very harsh words on social media today about the Nobel Peace Prize announcement, accusing Pillay of lies, hatred and blood libel.

Right. I’ve been following trials and proceedings for 20 years. There’s never a state that is accused of similar things that is saying, “Yeah, sure, we recognize it.” So, that’s, to me, absolutely not surprising. The wording maybe is harsher than sometimes is the case, but it’s really not surprising. There’s no state in the history of the world that came out and said, “Yes, of course, we’re committing genocide,” in the modern era. So, I find that really predictable.

As you mentioned, Pillay made her name internationally working on the Rwanda Tribunal. How successful was that tribunal and her work, and how was it viewed in your circles?

So, from all the tribunals that we have — and by now we have quite a few — but two early ones, were the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Tribunal for Rwanda. Both of these prosecuted more cases than all the others put together. These are tribunals that were established by the UN Security Council, and they established facts to enable us to know what happened. All of this evidence was collected that otherwise would have never been collected. Witnesses, survivors were heard. There was an acknowledgement of harm, of something that was done to them. Some guilty people — not all, but some guilty people, and among them leaders as well — went to jail. All taken into consideration, I think these two tribunals were actually quite successful.

Pillay then went on later in her career to work as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. What is her legacy in that role?

One thing that is notable about her work as a High Commissioner, but also later on the Commission of Inquiry, is that she speaks very plainly. When she speaks, it’s like she’s not afraid, she just says what’s on her mind, based on the evidence and the analysis that she’s conducted. I think some of the other people serving in these high-flying jobs are, maybe, a little bit more calculating, and I think she is not. She is known as a very straightforward person, and that’s something that stands out.

The Trump administration today announced that it would sanction the International Criminal Court, where Pillay used to work, as we’ve been talking about. Previously, it had imposed sanctions on its prosecutors and judges; this is an expanded sanction. What impact will this have on the work that that court is able to pull off?

Right. So, this is not a surprise but this is different, because this is against the court itself. It has a chilling effect on any other institution that is trying to hold up some standards, in terms of international law and human rights, but also it could be potentially completely paralyzing for the court because many organizations, private companies — people who have cloud services and software services and do catering for the court and all of that — are not going to be able to do that. If they have any links to the US, it’s very important now to see what the EU is going to do, because there’s a set of measures that the EU can introduce. It’s called the blocking statute, but at this point, it’s very hard to say because this has never happened. Sanctions normally applied against terrorist networks and drug lords. We know that the US has never been particularly friendly to the ICC, but if somebody told me 10 years ago that this is what we would be discussing, I would call them absolutely irrational. So, we have to see, in the weeks that are ahead of us, how this looks in practice, and how effective the counter-measures that the court has been preparing for, for months already, have been.