Q: Could you share with us what inspired you to build a career in international law?

A: Yes. So first of all, thank you for for having me. And for this interview, I'm,very happy to be here. I've had a wonderful time at this University.

To answer your question is very relevant to what you do because I understand that you are the head coach of the Jessup team. So, that's actually my inspiration for international law. I was in my second year of law school and I did a Moot Court competition. It was the All Africa Moot Court Competition which was sort of, you know, it's international human rights law which is, you know, international but it's not quite international, right? and I thought that was fascinating. I enjoyed it and I was I thought this is really what I want to do.

My all African Wood Court competition did very well and so we automatically became the Jessup team. We won the national round of the Jessup and we went to Washington and even in Washington, we did pretty well. We came 16th, this is this many, many years ago, so this is 1995-1996, and I knew it that point, I hadn't yet studied international law, but I knew at that point.That this is the kind of law I wanted to do. I don't want to do any other kind of law as a career.

Q: How do you think that international human rights law can help? For example, avoid or prevent conflicts in specific affected areas, such a Latin America, Africa, some parts of Europe and so on.

A: So my own take on these things, is that law itself doesn't prevent these things. Law is an instrument that we use as a society to sort of regulate each other's conduct but I do think that human rights law is absolutely fundamental for ensuring some kind of an equilibrium.

If you are able to respect each other and that's really what human rights laws about, I mean, Human Rights was about making sure that we respect each other, respect our choices, if you're able to respect each other and you're able to respect each other's needs. It can, at least psychologically promote a sense of sharing a sense of togetherness.

That's what we need to do to really prevent conflict law itself, plays a moderate role, but ultimately to prevent conflict, it's not the law that's going to do that. The law is there to regulate conduct in the event that they have violations and so on.

What do you do after the conflict has broken out? How do you hold people accountable for violations of human rights but to prevent conflict before? It's the impulse of Human Rights, not human rights law but the impulse of human rights which is respecting each other.Respecting each other's needs, respecting each, other's choices, respecting our differences in our similarities. The law is what comes after that. But ultimately I think it's that respect because it builds something internally about how we relate to each other. It's connected with law, but it's not the law.

But to prevent conflict, I think you have to start with that initial impulse.

Q: In Colombia we’ve been to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights a bunch of times, but sometimes it's kind of difficult to comply with the obligations, how do you think that those tribunals can really help states to comply with those international human rights obligations?  

A: So, I'll start first with what I said earlier. Law doesn't prevent conflict. Law doesn't prevent breaches, law in general deals once breaches, have occurred. How do you ensure compliance? How I see international law and how I see the role of traditional organs, like the Interamerican Court, like the African Court, the European court is they are and they are courtts, but they're very important courts in a system to ensure compliance. If you think about the European system, which is the one in which we see the most compliance, the reason why this compliance is not because of the European Court of Human Rights. It's because there's another system a layer outside of that.

The European Council, which ensures compliance. Right? So if you don't comply they are consequences, but the court itself can't show compliance. The function of the Court is to resolve the dispute in front of it to identify what breaches have been  caused, what harm has been caused and what are the consequences from the breach in the harm? And then after that, it's for the other parts of the system, the other courts to enjoy compliance those courts, by the way I gave the example of the European, the council is an important for insurance compliance, but even then  that is not the primary court.

The primary court is the State against whom a finding has been made. You are a court in the system and the system has said, you have, you know, acted in violation of the law your responsibility as part of that Court. Is to act in compliance with the decision of the Court.

If you don't act in compliance to the call, there is a secondary element, write a second element and that's the other states. The other states have to act to ensure that you act in compliance. When that doesn't happen. Well, then there is the other court.

Is the court that renders a decision, a court for insurance compliance. Absolutely. Not the function of the court is to render its decision and then it stands back and the danger with expecting courts to ensure compliance is that then as a judge I'm thinking well I want my judgments to be complied with therefore we're going to issue orders that are easy to comply with.

So, I think courts shouldn't be concerned about compliance court should simply say: Here are the facts. Here's the law that we have identified. And here's our decision and we'll leave the rest up to the other courts in the system.

Q: Now, let's move a little bit to the International Court of Justice where you act as a judge right now.As you mentioned, we do have challenges and all theirVery important challenges in multilateralism, of course, that includes the international court of justice as the main judicial organ, the United Nations, and even some people call that multirateralism against fighting crisis, like wars and environmentally impact, and climate change are lost battles. So from your perspective and specifically from the role International court of justice, how do you think that this court can play or which rol can it play in adversing this issues effectively?

A: As we've seen in the last five years, certainly in the last two years, he plays a huge, a huge role in addressing these. So again it plays a huge role in identifying what the legal rules are, and what the responsibilities of states are We have seen An explosion of of court cases In which states are trusting the international court of justice to resolve their disputes. And but in resolving, that dispute is actually to do slightly more than that. In resolving their disputes to also lay down legal rules that are applicable to other states. And it's true, the laying down of these other legal rules, or at least clarifying legal rules that I think the ICJ can You know, address these issues that you so you've highlighted, you know, we've got a big one coming up in just, what is it? We're now in the end of October, and just about a month. you know, it's going to be in a position to say, you know, to make certain determinations which could potentially have a huge impact on sort of the future of our planet.

Q: From that specific point, I believe that of course whenever an international tribunal says that a status responsible for reaching an international obligation that's going to have a huge impact in the media, and that's going to make a lot of situations that are brought to the court, have a lot of attention mean (e.g. Ukraine and Russia) but what about those other specific situations that do not have those type of attention? For example the situation in Yemen and some situations in Africa and some other type of conflicts, how would you how do you think that the court and international law could help to address this issues?

A: So let's talk about the court first. The court can only address those situations that are before it.As you know, one of the challenges with international law, and I use challenge, as an understatement, but one of the challenges of international law is the lack of compository jurisdiction. So, there are many things that are happening all over the world, for which the court could address.

But that the court cannot address because it doesn't have jurisdiction, right? Because it doesn't have jurisdiction over the states, the states have not accepted the composers station.

So, the extent that the situation cannot come before the court because of lack of jurisdiction. There's very little that the court can do directly in respect of that situation. But there is something that the court can do. Broadly speaking and that is that through its other cases, the court can issue Judgments and through issuing judgment. It's can expose legal rules, that are relevant to that, so at least that address that, but that's indirect and that then leads us to your to the second part of your question And I think what internacional law can do is Well, it's not so much. What international open do? It's more what those of us that are charged with,

With speaking about International and that includes, you know, academics it includes judges, it includes students. The ICJ like so many other situations that don't get the spotlight and it's important I think when international law and for international lawyers when they're thinking about situation to think about you know all of these situations in an equal way. One of my my biggest concerns is How we treat likes like cases differently. You know I think we have to get into the point where like cases are treated the same you know in terms of our commentary that's important.

Q: now that you're mentioning the part that all cases should be treated the same It's very interesting because as you know, when we speak about the way that international law sees the different type of conflicts or there are around the world. I think that you may have very important contribution to that specifically dealing with the solidarity in international law, That's a very important aspect that has helped shape one of the solutions to those problems. Or how would you think that solidarity and international law can actually help address those?

A: I mean solidarity is the thing that that drives me. So, when we started with the interview, we were talking about, the impulse treat each other in a particular way, treat each other. And that's really what solidarity is about, right? So, so it's my railing cry. I believe that that to Build a Better World, There has to be solidarity and that's not law speaking, that's in general. So there has to be solidarity. We have to care about each other enough to uplift the other, right?

That's sociological. But then there's a legal. And my hope is that law can somehow reflect that, right? Law, doesn't reflect that. We know that in our international law that we live in is a bilateral, state-centric, narrow national interests, kind of law.

My Hope Is that Law can one day reflect the sense of solidarity but law cannot reflect this sense of solidarity and tell Society, reflects the sense of directly. You know, I was having a conversation I think it was with Maria Carmelina Londoño (Haed of the Master’s of International Law, Universidad de La Sabana) actually about what follows what? is it law, that follows policy or is it policy for law? I think it's at least in general policy comes first and then law givegives impetus to that. So if you don't have Solidarity in the sense of, you know, Society the social and the politics. It's going to be very difficult to have law reflecting solidarity because law reflect Society.

If You have a an international law that is built on solidarity. Then you don't have to think about what are the legal theories that explain. Why we must hold multinationals responsible for no, you don't need a legal Theory because, you know, as a society you've decided that it is our responsibility collectively.

Q: Coming from a Latin American country where sometimes we see solidarity challenge socially how do you think that specifically dealing with this principle of solidarity, how do you think that it can help for example regions such as Latin America, specifically Colombia?

A:  I mean, let me just say, I think that the concept like solidarity are given birth to in this region. And I'm not saying that just because I'm here. It's you know, we all know that this is a region that is synonymous with the concept. My own continent took this concept, and it put it into its main legal text. So, it's a concept that is not alien to Latin America. It's a concept that's not alien to Africa. And these, I think, are two of the continents that will benefit the most from solidarity, you know? A lot of the conflicts that we see on this continent, a lot of the conflicts that we see in my own continent, are easy to resolve if you have international relations inspired by solidarity. So it’s both born here, but it’s also clear that this is a region that would benefit more from solidarity.

Q: And I agree with you in the sense that it’s mentioned here, and we as Latin America have had our legal systems very attached to the Inter-American system of Human Rights, but also, for example, civil codes based on the human person. You know, the French civil code actually comes based on people, on the rights of the people. But still, I think it’s important to know your perspective. As you were mentioning that even though it is international law, how do you think that, for example, the International Court of Justice can help shape this?

A: I mean, that’s a very difficult question, and that’s of course what I’ll be talking about tomorrow, but I can still say something about it even now. It’s a difficult question because the International Court of Justice is an institution, but it’s an institution that’s made up of individuals, and individuals come from very different places with very different ideas. And I don’t think that every judge on the ICJ shares my sense that international law has to be, you know, sort of directive. I don’t know. I have enough that has to be a sort of derivative-based system, and that was the goal. And that’s the challenge for the court. The challenge for the court is how to get these 15 people who may have very different philosophies about international law to reach decisions, which, even if they don’t speak solidarity, even if the decision doesn’t include solidarity, even if the concepts that I use aren’t, you know, sort of based concepts, the outcome is a solidarity-based outcome, right? So that’s the real challenge. I don’t have the answer to that question, but it’s something that we have to try to do, right? I mean, it’s something that certainly I – and I’m not trying to say this because when I ran for the ICJ, that’s what I said I would do. You know, my brochure had this statement that said, "If there’s anything that has characterized my career in international law, it has been this notion that international law must be driven by solidarity," and I have that debt because my hope is that I’ll be able to influence the court in that direction. And I don’t know if I will be able to support that direction, but if I’m not able to, my hope is that I’ll be able to lay enough of a seed, or enough seeds, that those that come after me will be able to. But it has to be a long-term project. It’s, you know, it has to be a long-term project, and I think it’s worthwhile because I… you know, I was playing with something this morning when I was looking at the remarks I’m going to make about thinking about the world if we aren’t able to achieve an international law based on solidarity. And I… you know, I don’t think it’s a good world. I think it’s a dangerous place.

Q: Well, now let’s move a little bit to your role in the ICJ and some very specific aspects regarding the ICJ. So, now that you mentioned the importance of the ICJ – and I believe that’s a very important goal that you’re pursuing in the ICJ – how would you think, for example, that the ICJ could specifically ensure its judgments are applied by independent countries? And I ask you this because something you mentioned earlier sparked my interest regarding how states comply with the judgments and how you, as a judge, when you’re writing the decision with the other 14 judges in the room, you’re thinking about, "All right, is this going to be complied with or not?" Sometimes it’s not, you know? Sometimes it’s not complied with, and I think that’s a certain challenge that the ICJ faces. And now that you mention the part of solidarity, I believe that you think that the ICJ has a very important role in all of this. So how do you think that its judgments could be complied with?

A: So, I don’t think that the ICJ should worry about that at all. I think that the ICJ should worry about making good law and resolving disputes using the good law. Compliance with the judgments of the Court comes from external factors. We are all in this together, and so we all have a responsibility for compliance. So, as I said earlier, I said the first court of compliance is the state against whom a decision is rendered. That state has a responsibility to comply. Now, you might think, "Well, it might not be in that state’s interest to comply with the judgment," but I think it is in that state’s interest, even in its own narrow national interests. You know, one of the cases, if you read the textbooks, so on, your typical case of non-compliance that we talk about is Nicaragua, right? The Military and Paramilitary Activities case. Okay, so you’re going to see, not long after that, the state that had been accused of not complying with the judgment now was before the ICJ expecting that the judgment of the ICJ in its favor would be complied with, right? In the Iran Hostage case. So, not only is it your responsibility because this is a system, but it’s also your responsibility as a state because it’s in your interest. There will be a day when you will be expecting compliance with an order or a decision in your favor. So that’s the first court, that’s the state. The second court is other states have a responsibility to ensure that you comply by taking whatever measures, of course, within the limits of international law, to ensure compliance. Because again, the story is, one is a global reason that this is a system and we all have to support the system. But there should also be a narrow national interest, and that narrow national interest is, one day it will be me expecting compliance with a judgment of the court and I will be expecting other states to assist. And then finally, there’s always, you know, a global system in the context of the ICJ. Of course, you’ve got the UN SecurityCouncil, which is responsible, but I would say even it’s not just the Security Council, it’s even the General Assembly. The General Assembly also has a responsibility to ensure compliance with the judgments, orders, and decisions of the court. So that’s the system. The function of the court is to speak the law, resolve the dispute, and then to fold our hands. And it’s not a failure of the court when judgments of the Court are not complied with. I don’t think it is a failure of the court at all. I mean, except that the court makes such a horrendous decision that everybody criticizes it – that’s a different matter. Pure non-compliance, I don’t think, should be the responsibility of the court.

Q: Sometimes I have had some experience working on implementing orders from international tribunals, and I can tell you sometimes, it's a bit of a challenge. For states to understand, you know? Like, for example, if I have, let's say… let’s speak about the way that the ICJ relates to other international tribunals, well, as you know Tribunals have their own jurisdiction, they relate specifically to human rights issues, human rights violations, in the region, in the region, and so on. But the ICJ, it has a really broad scope. I mean, it can deal with any type of violations related to international law. So whenever you're a state that, whenever your state, sorry, trying to understand this relation between the tribunals, like should I comply with Inter-American Court of Human Rights or comply with the ICJ? Sometimes they tend to, you know, in some cases actually for a state, it's not easy to understand what to do, when it's to do, or how to do it if it's going to be. So how do you think that relates specifically to the ICJ from the other tribunals?

A: So, I'm not trying to sidestep the question, but before I answer, you know, ask you to state the question, there's just one thing that I want to say, what you just said: sometimes states, are unsure about what to do to comply. Yeah. So yes, I think there's a responsibility on the part of the courts to make sure that the orders and judgments are very clear. And sometimes, you know, as courts in judgments, sometimes we might be guilty of having, you know, ambiguous orders and decisions. That is the fault of the court, you know, and the court should do. I mean, it's the reason, of course, but the court should do what it can to ensure that its orders and its judgments and its decisions are clear, that there's no ambiguity.

Q: Well, that's a very important responsibility because, now, as you were saying sometimes, I mean, judgments tend to be very complex, of course, because they're very technical. And the fact that they're very technical and sometimes, you know, they're not as difficult to understand for people who are interested in international law as to, you know, like people that are not into international law. And specifically speaking about the role of the courts, specifically about the ICJ, for example, it's been addressing an issue that means it's important for everyone, which is, for example, climate change or, for example, you know, the conflict in Russia.

So, do you think that, for example, the decisions that are rendered by the court might be or should be taken, you know, in a different type of language, a different type of order?

A: I mean, in general, for those look, you know, I know the dispositive of the court. Okay, well, I don't think I, you know, I, I don’t know every, you know, but those that I read in general, I understand. I mean, there are some really technical, you know, and very difficult to comprehend, unless you’re involved in those cases. But in general, it's the dispositive that's directed to the states concerned. The dispositive is generally very clear, yes, especially for a state that has been involved in the case and knows exactly what the issues are. I don't think that the, there are instances and I can think of them, I won't mention, you know, because they’re ongoing cases, but there are instances in which I can see that this order is, you know, is ambiguous. And I can, I can see that it's probably purposefully ambiguous. But in general, I think the dispositives of the court are clear, and there's very little, you know, room for maneuvers. I think states generally know what they're supposed to do to comply with these, you know, at least of the ICJ.

Q: Now, let's move a little bit to something related to your experience as a legal expert on advising states, for example, on issues regarding environmental, and I’m, I will move to this part because right now in Colombia, we're having the Conference of the Parties 16, you know, in Cali, and environmental issues right now are very important for Colombia. You know, the actual government actually is very interested in these issues. And how do you think international law can help shape the policies for, you know, protecting the environment and avoiding climate change and so on?

A: Yes. I said that Colombia is one of the mega biodiverse countries in the world, right? I've worked, so I've worked on, yeah, I guess I must take a couple of steps back and say I actually did my PhD on sustainable… yeah. And when I started working for the foreign ministry, the issues that I worked on the most were environmental law-related issues. So it involved the sea and investigation related to, to ocean. But actually, my first multilateral treaty that I negotiated was a supplementary protocol to the Cartagena Protocol, okay? And that's actually what we do, that it was liability, and again, here you see law and policy coming together, right. I still think that policy, there has to be a policy to be, you know, environmentally protective, and the law must follow that policy. In terms of biodiversity, of course, you've got various organs that are designed to promote the making of policies, right? Like, for example, the conference of the parties, and the conference of the parties itself has created a number of scientific bodies to ensure that decisions on the protection of biodiversity are based on science.

The responsibility is always to follow it, right? Law and law in an environmental context must be very much driven by, well, I should say, policy must be driven by science, right? And then law must be very much driven by the policy. So there's a, there's a very strong connection between law, policy, and science, especially in the area of environment, and I, you know, I don't think it can be any other way. And whether it’s climate change, oceans, or anything else, it’s very important that science plays a very important role for the policy, and the policy which comes from the science plays a very important role in the making of law.

Q: That’s very important because I believe that scientific certainty, as you were mentioning, is crucial for a state to know with certainty the impacts that its activities are having on the environment. So, for example, we see current debates regarding climate change, specifically common but differentiated responsibilities. In Colombia, there’s an ongoing discussion around this topic. Some people argue that the exploitation of natural resources like oil and coal is contributing to environmental issues. Others counter, saying, “Wait a minute—we do exploit those resources, but not to the extent that other states do. So, do we really need to move away from exploiting these resources?” This creates tension on the economic side, especially in a country like Colombia, whose GDP is very dependent on oil and coal. Based on your experience with international environmental law, how can this area of law help address such complex issues?

A: Well, the debate you’re talking about is a policy debate. Right. So, the more important policy you’ve got to resolve is that debate. You know, at a domestic level, you’ve got to resolve the debate about, “What do we do?” So, I’m not speaking specifically at the domestic level in Colombia, but if you’re having this debate, that debate has to be resolved. Once a debate is resolved, you then have to say, “Well, if the debate is…,” well, so if the debate is, “We are a country that needs to exploit these resources,” and that’s the outcome of the debate—that might not be a great outcome statement, right? But that’s the outcome of your social debate.

Is that driven by science? Right. So, the science has to say to you, “What are the consequences if we decide to move in this direction? What are the consequences for Colombia long-term? What are the consequences if there’s…if we’re not able to address climate change?” And then, remember again, I said, “What drives me is solidairty so that the consequences for the world—so even if, in the scientific modeling that you can come up with, Colombia will be fine, but everybody else will not be fine—a solidarity-based policy would hopefully translate to solidarity-based international law. It requires that you act in the interests not just of Colombia, but in the interests of the world.

None of what I’ve said, of course, takes into account CBDR. I mean, CBDR is important in my mind, both as a policy and a legal concept, and it’s there for a reason. I mean, there’s a reason for CBDR. So, CBDR as a legal concept comes from a policy understanding of why we are at this point, why we are at the present. There’s a reason why the world is on the precipice in the context of climate change. And it’s not because of Colombia’s overexploitation of greenhouse gases; it’s not because of Malawi’s overexploitation.

That’s what CBDR is there for. So, all of these things have to play a role in the policy debate. And once it has played a role in the policy debate, it has to play a role in the legal outcome. I think the complexity with climate change, of course, is that these debates are happening in at least two different places: they are happening at the domestic level, but they also happen at the international level. And the outcomes of those debates in these two places may well be very different, which complicates decision-making. But ultimately, you have to go through the policy debate, and then on the basis of that, you go through the legal debate.

Q: That formula of going first to the policy, the scientific-based evidence, and then to the law, I think is very interesting. Now, I want to ask you something related to your career. You’ve had a brilliant career in international law and are recognized as a legal expert in the field. For those students here at our university who are aspiring to careers in international law, what advice would you give them? How would you inspire them to build a career in international law?

A: So many things to think about. The most important thing? One is, do what’s in front of you. Don’t plan ahead. This notion that “I just finished my master’s degree; I want to make sure that in 15 years’ time, I’m on the ILC, I’m a judge”—no. Do what’s in front of you. That’s the most important thing: do what’s in front of you, but do it with everything that you have. Do it with a passion; do it with almost reckless abandon, right? You must, you must—you must enjoy it. International law is fun.

I mean, the reason why I did it—I got into international law not because I thought, “You know, I wanted to make the world a better place.” I’m not going to say that; that “I want to make the world a better place” thing came much later in my career. I did it actually because I thought it was fun; I thought it was interesting. And I enjoyed it. And, you know, one of the things that I’ll tell you is, if you enjoy something, you do it well. You have to enjoy this. If you want to do international law, you’ve got to enjoy it. That’s the first thing: do what’s in front of you, and do it with joy.

And then, hopefully, as your career progresses, you will learn—and I don’t think that this is a responsibility that we should place on young people already—but as your career progresses, you will learn that there’s more important things than you. There’s a community, there’s a society, there’s the globe, and then you should look outward. And it shouldn’t just be about the progression; it should be, “What can I do to make the world a better place?” But all of these things are step by step. So first of all, learn to enjoy the area. That’s the law; that’s international law. Do it with reckless abandon, don’t plan too far ahead, do what’s in front of you and do it well. And then, with time, learn that it’s not about you. It’s about something bigger.

By the time you learn that, you’re enjoying it so much you don’t mind the responsibility, and you don’t mind the burden—the burden is a welcome addition.

Q: Wow, that’s very important. I really—I mean, I think I even wrote down the part where you said, “It’s not about you; it’s about something bigger.” International law is indeed about something bigger than oneself. Thank you very much. I think we’ve explored very important issues.

A: Yes. Oh no, it’s been wonderful talking to you, and it’s been wonderful being here. I think you’re really, really wonderful people.