[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"gql:data:MONBxYgYEhGUyk6f2DwO_Kk0nVufpNZxVFSOnBQAUmQ":3,"gql:data:R1sSBi9s5gqfq9K9R-I-f5JNnovIyTJF0G-mT5i9kRA":57,"gql:data:P1L-3F4yLFT8Sm-6QpbQIoqRmZ3TevlXAnhvTQmaZho":63,"gql:data:tyCI5HNt1HZczdKwWSz9r1bpaSHHrboaGtCGGtlkHBc":70,"gql:data:yxtepiAIgU6wIBqK3wYdgLRWg-QNgf2zDL8SSTsBMXA":142,"gql:data:qmJY4-503CHlJg4_ZSHARjkzFPaXzbxV7BFMovCRKYg":151,"gql:data:F5XFk-0KeiF-1dN3D-w4yHj9DZEkkQSuOolEKZfCi3I":157,"gql:data:HT7XK9L7FevXFqeorguiilMT3M34fS21-YSozsBn3eg":330},{"globalSet":4},{"id":5,"handle":6,"heading":7,"image":8,"contacts":17,"address":28,"networks":35,"richSubtitle":52,"richText":54,"links":56},"2","identity","Ibraaz",[9],{"id":10,"path":11,"alt":12,"title":13,"width":14,"height":15,"mimeType":16},"47","building.png",null,"Building",1536,1024,"image/png",[18,23],{"title":19,"contactLink":20},"General",{"value":21,"defaultLabel":22},"mailto:enquiries@ibraaz.org","enquiries@ibraaz.org",{"title":24,"contactLink":25},"Press",{"value":26,"defaultLabel":27},"mailto:press@ibraaz.org","press@ibraaz.org",[29],{"title":30,"countryCode":31,"addressLine1":32,"addressLine2":12,"addressLine3":12,"locality":33,"postalCode":34},"Location","GB","93 Mortimer Street","London","W1W 7SS",[36,40,44,48],{"title":37,"path":38},"Instagram",{"url":39},"https://www.instagram.com/ibraazlondon/",{"title":41,"path":42},"Facebook",{"url":43},"https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583823886627",{"title":45,"path":46},"YouTube",{"url":47},"https://www.youtube.com/@ibraazlondon",{"title":49,"path":50},"Bluesky",{"url":51},"https://bsky.app/profile/ibraaz.bsky.social",{"html":53},"\u003Cp>Opening hours\u003C/p>",{"html":55},"\u003Cp>Wed - Sun: 11am - 6pm\u003C/p>",[],{"entries":58},[59],{"uri":60,"title":61,"typeHandle":62},"ibraaz-publishing/read/that-which-we-cannot-not-want-on-international-law-and-peoples-justice","That Which We Cannot Not Want: On International Law and People’s Justice","longForm",{"globalSet":64},{"id":65,"handle":66,"heading":67,"richText":68},"37","forms","Culture is a work in progress. Stay updated.",{"html":69},"\u003Cp>By subscribing to our newsletter you are agreeing to receiving updates and communications from Ibraaz.\u003C/p>",{"globalSet":71},{"id":72,"handle":73,"linksGroups":74},"128","navigation",[75,81,112,118,124,130,136],{"title":76,"entry":77,"links":80},"What’s On",[78],{"uri":79},"whats-on",[],{"title":82,"entry":83,"links":86},"Publishing",[84],{"uri":85},"ibraaz-publishing",[87,92,97,102,107],{"title":88,"entry":89},"Writing Gaza",[90],{"uri":91},"ibraaz-publishing/writing-gaza",{"title":93,"entry":94},"Mission Statement",[95],{"uri":96},"ibraaz-publishing/mission-statement",{"title":98,"entry":99},"Read",[100],{"uri":101},"ibraaz-publishing/read",{"title":103,"entry":104},"Watch",[105],{"uri":106},"ibraaz-publishing/watch",{"title":108,"entry":109},"Listen",[110],{"uri":111},"ibraaz-publishing/listen",{"title":113,"entry":114,"links":117},"Visit Us",[115],{"uri":116},"visit-us",[],{"title":119,"entry":120,"links":123},"About Us",[121],{"uri":122},"about-us",[],{"title":125,"entry":126,"links":129},"Oula: Café-in-Residence",[127],{"uri":128},"oula-cafe",[],{"title":131,"entry":132,"links":135},"Maktaba: Bookshop-in-Residence",[133],{"uri":134},"maktaba-bookshop-in-residence",[],{"title":137,"entry":138,"links":141},"Contact Us",[139],{"uri":140},"contact-us",[],{"globalSet":143},{"id":144,"handle":145,"activated":146,"heading":147,"richText":148,"text":150},"16767","notification",false,"Visitor Information",{"html":149},"\u003Cp>Please note that our Majlis is currently closed and will reopen with our next exhibition in early July. The rest of the building is open so please do visit!\u003C/p>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr /> \u003C/p>","Got it",{"globalSet":152},{"id":153,"handle":154,"heading":12,"richText":155},"11","gdpr",{"html":156},"\u003Cp>We use cookies to give you the best experience. By clicking 'Accept' you consent to the use of all cookies. \u003Ca href=\"/privacy-policy\">Privacy Policy\u003C/a>.\u003C/p>",{"entry":158},{"id":159,"uri":60,"title":61,"slug":160,"postDate":161,"typeHandle":62,"sectionHandle":162,"meta":163,"readCategories":166,"writeCategories":170,"missionCategories":171,"figure":172,"pdf":173,"authorInfo":174,"richTitle":179,"richSubtitle":12,"richDescription":181,"richExcerpt":12,"image":183,"externalLinks":191,"entrySections":192,"related":270},"4048","that-which-we-cannot-not-want-on-international-law-and-peoples-justice","2025-11-30T01:00:00+00:00","read",[164],{"title":61,"description":12,"image":165},[],[167],{"title":168,"slug":169},"Essay","essay",[],[],[],[],[175],{"authorName":176,"authorBio":177},"Shela Sheikh",{"html":178},"\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Shela Sheikh\u003C/strong> is \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.london.ac.uk/people/dr-shela-sheikh\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Senior Lecturer\u003C/a> in International Politics at the University of London Institute in Paris. Her research spans post/decolonial cultural studies, environmental humanities, and global arts. She is currently preparing a monograph, \u003Ci>Rehearsing Environmental Justice: People’s Tribunals, Staged Hearings, Potential Histories\u003C/i>, and is engaged in several editorial projects around post/decolonial ecologies and anti-imperialist publishing. \u003C/p>",{"html":180},"\u003Cp>That Which We Cannot Not Want: On International Law and People’s Justice\u003C/p>",{"html":182},"\u003Cp>Shela Sheikh explores the role of cultural institutions in staging debates regarding emancipatory engagements with legal systems. \u003C/p>",[184],{"id":185,"path":186,"alt":12,"title":187,"width":188,"height":189,"mimeType":190},"4055","that-which-we-cannot-not-want-on-international-law-and-peoples-justice/Fig.-1.jpg","Fig 1",11648,8736,"image/jpeg",[],[193,199,203,211,220,223,228,233,243,252,255,260,265],{"typeHandle":194,"richTitle":12,"richSubtitle":195,"richText":197},"content",{"html":196},"1",{"html":198},"\u003Cp>Against the backdrop of global inaction to prevent and cease the current genocide and ecocide in Gaza, and with this a resounding death knell of international law and human rights, the question of the relationship between law and politics, of legalism (i.e., adherence to law) in the service of anti-colonial resistance, intensifies.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">1\u003C/span> While there have recently been inspirational attempts – notably by the Hague Group, ‘a global bloc of states committed to “coordinated legal and diplomatic measures” in defense of international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine’ – to take an effective, exemplary position where other nation-states and international bodies shun responsibility, the question resists easy resolution.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">2\u003C/span> This does not, however, detract from its urgency. As I write, the temporal horizon includes both the emergency of genocide and mass starvation, on the one hand, and the terrifying institutional slowness of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), on the other.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">3\u003C/span> And yet, despite their apparent hollowness, we might well say that law and rights are ‘that which one cannot not want.’\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">4\u003C/span> The question then is how, in what form, and in what relations of power and political struggle one might want them.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>There would be many ways to respond to this, depending on one’s position – for instance, between those who bear rights and those responsible for recognising and ensuring those rights, between those who defend human rights and civil society, between those who critique law and those who practise it, and so on – and my aim here is to begin to think through how a cultural institution such as Ibraaz might provide a meaningful space for such a debate.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">5\u003C/span> But allow me to begin elsewhere. As an academic who draws from the writings of critical legal scholars and who takes the claims and demands of anti-colonial activists seriously, I find myself drawn to the persistent question for scholars of international law, in particular those of the critical legal tradition, of whether to denounce Israel’s attacks on Gaza on the basis of their \u003Ci>illegality\u003C/i>, or whether to denounce the very system of international law.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">6\u003C/span> I suggest that this debate could function as a productive starting point from which to consider the role of academics more broadly, as well as artists, cultural workers, and activists – in conversation with practising lawyers – and, as I am coming to, to do so in the context of London.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Scholars of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), for instance, have long shown that ‘international law is a working structure of global domination, one that reproduces colonial hierarchies, racialized exclusions, and gendered violence’ and that ‘international law fails every day’.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">7\u003C/span> As many have noted, and as is a recurrent topic in a 2024 dossier dedicated to international law and Gaza, well-meaning gestures of appealing to international law ‘ultimately sustain and reproduce the inequitable structure of international legal argumentation that generally upholds the colonial and capitalist underpinnings of liberal legalism’, to cite from legal scholar Nora Jaber’s contribution.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">8\u003C/span> \u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":194,"richTitle":12,"richSubtitle":200,"richText":201},{"html":5},{"html":202},"\u003Cp>Here, in the case of the UK, history repeats itself: in 2003, legal scholars penned an open letter opposing the US and British invasion of Iraq using the language of law, which subsequently prompted much reflection on their own part that they had unintentionally appeared to champion an international law that they in fact wished to critique.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">9\u003C/span> The question thus looms large, over 20 years on, of what approach to take: to cite Jaber once again, there is on the one hand a desire ‘to turn away from the liberal international legal order and toward more emancipatory sites of resistance’. While I subscribe to this, I simultaneously wish to retrieve the counter-hegemonic potential of international law, especially when put to use \u003Ci>from below\u003C/i> – its possibility to be used as a tool\u003Ci> \u003C/i>in the service of political resistance and a horizon of decolonisation, to be ‘part of [a] future story that is yet to be written’.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">10\u003C/span>\u003C/p>\u003Cp>To remain a moment with the critical legal: one way of responding to this conundrum is to begin by clarifying the difference between ‘tactics’ (short-term action, for instance, legalism or reform) and ‘strategy’ (longer-term intervention, including revolution – the kind of critique signalled above by Jaber), as helpfully elucidated by legal scholar Robert Knox in an oft-cited 2010 article, ‘Strategy and Tactics’.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">11\u003C/span> Here I propose that people’s tribunals are exemplary spaces through which to think through and experiment with the relationship between the two approaches and even, potentially, to follow the lead of TWAIL scholars for whom, as Luis Eslava writes, the struggle ‘must always be about present “tactics”, and about a longer “strategy”’.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">12\u003C/span> I contend that people’s tribunals and staged hearings (fictive or ‘mock’ trials) are ideal spaces in which to tease out dilemmas around what legal scholar Tor Krever calls the ‘juridification of resistance’, and to rehearse possible avenues for seeking justice within and beyond the realm of law and rights.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">13\u003C/span> \u003C/p>\u003Cp>While in recent months there have been two Gaza Tribunals, I will not engage with these here.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">14\u003C/span> Rather, due to the particularity of their form and framing, I turn to two events that took place in West London simultaneously over a weekend in April this year and that each held Gaza in the backdrop – the Court for Intergenerational Climate Crimes and the People’s Tribunal on Police Killings – to explore two differing, but highly critical approaches to human rights, (international) law, and their colonial and liberal underpinnings. Krever has argued that in people’s tribunals after the moment of Third World movements and anticolonial internationalism, the liberal (i.e., neutral and apolitical) language of international law and human rights has displaced other emancipatory frameworks in the political imagination of internationalism.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">15\u003C/span> However, I posit that during the course of this weekend in London, between these two events, glimpses of an alternative political imagination could be discerned. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>The Court for Intergenerational Climate Crimes (CICC), established by lawyer, scholar, and activist Radha D’Souza and artist–researcher Jonas Staal, is a project that ‘stages public hearings in immersive installations functioning as a court, to prosecute intergenerational [i.e., past, present, and future] climate crimes committed by states and corporations acting together’.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">16\u003C/span> It does this through the form of a ‘more-than-human tribunal’ that includes the representation of extinct species and non-human agents such as plants, alongside judges and a public jury, composed of the audience, that is tasked with passing a verdict based on the Intergenerational Climate Crimes Act, the legal foundation of the work, which assembles and supplements progressive elements of legal and political thought such as the rights of nature, interdependency, the rights of future generations, transformative justice, and so on.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">17\u003C/span>\u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":204,"image":205,"caption":207,"width":209,"ratio":210},"figure",[206],{"id":185,"path":186,"alt":12,"title":187,"width":188,"height":189,"mimeType":190},{"html":208},"\u003Cp>Radha D’Souza and Jonas Staal, \u003Ci>Court for Intergenerational Climate Crimes: The British East India Company on Trial\u003C/i>, 2025, Serpentine Galleries Ecologies. Photo: Ruben Hamelink.\u003C/p>","wide","landscape",{"typeHandle":204,"image":212,"caption":219,"width":209,"ratio":210},[213],{"id":214,"path":215,"alt":12,"title":216,"width":217,"height":218,"mimeType":190},"4063","that-which-we-cannot-not-want-on-international-law-and-peoples-justice/Fig.-2.jpg","Fig 2",11646,8735,{"html":208},{"typeHandle":194,"richTitle":12,"richSubtitle":12,"richText":221},{"html":222},"\u003Cp>This particular chapter, titled \u003Ci>The British East India Company on Trial\u003C/i>, was the third iteration of the project, following hearings in Amsterdam in 2021 and Gwangju in 2023, each time in arts spaces. Staged at the Ambika P3 space at the University of Westminster on Marylebone Road from 4 to 6 April (an off-site commission of the Serpentine Gallery), the hearing set its sights close to home: on the enduring legacies of the British East India Company (EIC, which was founded in 1600 and ceased to exist as a legal entity in 1873) ‘for extractive capitalism and imperialism, perpetuating ecological collapse’.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">18\u003C/span> During three cases (videos of which are available online), the public jury heard from and posed questions to a variety of witnesses – representing campaign groups, grassroots organisations, human rights organisations, environmental groups, researchers, scholars, and journalists – ‘regarding the crimes committed by the British East India Company, highlighting the interconnectedness of colonial and climate crimes that continue to shape our devastating present and future’. These included the destruction of ecologies and communities; the establishment of agribusiness and destruction of interdependent ecologies; and the violent severance of land–people relationships. \u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":194,"richTitle":12,"richSubtitle":224,"richText":226},{"html":225},"3",{"html":227},"\u003Cp>Knox delineates the difference between \u003Ci>tactical\u003C/i> approaches to international law, which end up capitulating to liberal legalism, and \u003Ci>strategic\u003C/i> approaches, which have longer term, structural objectives. To paraphrase Knox, these latter stand in distinction to a liberal, mainstream, or ‘common sense’ understanding of law that sees it as a ‘neutral’ vessel that can end relations of exploitation and domination (notably colonial). In other words, rather than seeing law as a set of specific rules, strategic approaches understand law as a \u003Ci>structure\u003C/i> – a relationship between law and social phenomena – that constitutes and enables the relations that critical legal scholars wish to fight.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">19\u003C/span> This liberal understanding of law chimes with D’Souza’s critique of liberalism as the foundation of modern law and human rights (and as a political system), in her 2018 book, \u003Ci>What’s Wrong with Rights? Social Movements, Law and Liberal Imaginations\u003C/i>, which forms the conceptual basis for the CICC.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">20\u003C/span>\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Moving from human rights to climate crimes, the CICC was established precisely ‘to critique the liberal legal system that privileges states and corporations over ecologies and communities’ and that has ‘resulted in intergenerational injustice against natures and peoples around the world’.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">21\u003C/span> Rather than pursuing a project that diagnoses how the activities of the British East India Company and the corporations in its wake were/are \u003Ci>illegal\u003C/i> and must be contested in these terms (i.e., the tactical approach), the project takes the \u003Ci>strategic\u003C/i> line insofar as it proposes that if one is to strive for intergenerational climate justice, one needs an altogether different understanding and practice of law through which to define and judge the crimes in question. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>Essentially, as D’Souza outlined in her introductory speech on the opening evening, it is \u003Ci>the law itself\u003C/i> that is on trial here, a gesture inspired by key historic moments in which people have put the law on trial: national liberation movements, the slaves of Haiti, working people in the UK when they demanded a people’s law.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">22\u003C/span> And for this trial to be possible, a collective fabulation is necessary – one that conjures the potential of establishing intergenerational relationships of solidarity. Against the ‘real’ legal fictions of actually existing law (for instance, the legal personhood of corporations), the fictional hearing proposed a different legal imaginary, functioning as a form of prefigurative politics or politics of the subjunctive, \u003Ci>as if \u003C/i>it were possible to pass judgement on the British East India Company, \u003Ci>as if \u003C/i>the Intergenerational Climate Crimes Act and its statutes existed, and hence \u003Ci>as if\u003C/i> international human rights law and environmental law weren’t part of the problem.\u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":194,"richTitle":12,"richSubtitle":229,"richText":231},{"html":230},"4",{"html":232},"\u003Cp>That same weekend, less than half a mile’s walk away at a Regent’s Park venue, the People’s Tribunal on Police Killings (PTPK) was taking place. Led by the families of those killed and supported by the United Friends and Families Campaign, Migrant Media, and 4WardEverUK, with the assistance of Black Lives Matter UK, the tribunal assembled families and loved ones of 28 victims of police killings, and was organised with the aim of seeking recognition of the extent to which the British state has failed to protect its own citizens, and of ‘“exposing the extent of the injustice” and placing it on the international stage’.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">23\u003C/span> The tribunal called attention to the disproportionate number of Black people killed and the fact that, while there have been approximately 3,000 deaths in the UK at the hands of the police since 1971, only four prosecutions have led to the police officers responsible being convicted. On the stage of the auditorium, family members gave testimonies about how their loved ones died, their subsequent treatment by the police and legal system, and the impact this had on them. This was interspersed with contextual contributions from expert witnesses, responses from an international tribunal panel, and offerings from the two organisers, who had worked for several years with a group of mainly young volunteers to put together the event: Ken Fero (of Migrant Media) and Samantha Patterson (sister of Jason McPherson, who was killed in 2007 at London’s Notting Hill police station).\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">24\u003C/span> \u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":204,"image":234,"caption":241,"width":209,"ratio":210},[235],{"id":236,"path":237,"alt":12,"title":238,"width":239,"height":240,"mimeType":190},"5077","that-which-we-cannot-not-want-on-international-law-and-peoples-justice/Fig.-3-1.jpeg","Fig 3 1",1280,960,{"html":242},"\u003Cp>The People’s Tribunal on Police Killings (PTPK), Day 1, London, 5 April 2025. Courtesy of the author.\u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":204,"image":244,"caption":250,"width":209,"ratio":210},[245],{"id":246,"path":247,"alt":12,"title":248,"width":239,"height":249,"mimeType":190},"4895","that-which-we-cannot-not-want-on-international-law-and-peoples-justice/Fig.-4.jpeg","Fig 4",851,{"html":251},"\u003Cp>Families of victims of police killings demonstrate in London in 2003. Photo: Migrant Media.\u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":194,"richTitle":12,"richSubtitle":12,"richText":253},{"html":254},"\u003Cp>The tribunal is just one part of an international 10-year plan that includes three further tribunals (on prison killings, immigration detention, and secure medical units) and a three-pronged focus on international criminal law, the United Nations, and domestic legislation. The broader aim of the tribunal is to instigate the re-opening of several thousand police killings in the UK, to include pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the British police officers, police chiefs, government departments, and individuals responsible. As Fero outlines, the campaign is internationalist in outlook, explicitly linking police killings in the UK to those in Europe, the US, Brazil, and Palestine through the contributions of the tribunal panel, and citing earlier people’s tribunals such as the Russell Tribunal on Vietnam and the Russell Tribunal on Palestine as inspiration.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">25\u003C/span>\u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":194,"richTitle":12,"richSubtitle":256,"richText":258},{"html":257},"5",{"html":259},"\u003Cp>Let us return to the question of tactical and strategic interventions. The tribunal and the larger project, of which it is a part, perform both, enacting what Knox calls a ‘principled opportunism’ whereby the (tactical) deployment of a legal argument is in the service of longer-term strategic political exigencies and, in Krever’s words regarding the 1967 Russell Tribunal on Vietnam, legalism is ‘mobilized in aid of the tribunal’s broader practice of resistance against imperialism’ – to which we can here add state racism.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">26\u003C/span> Therefore, we might read the PTPK as a 21st-century response to the ‘potential history’ of the 1967 Russell Tribunal, a potentiality that has been dampened with the shift to a depoliticised language of liberal human rights. Where the CICC functioned in the register of the ‘as if’, we might say that the PTPK inhabited the ‘what if?’\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">27\u003C/span> \u003C/p>\u003Cp>The CICC’s speculative hearings, which function \u003Ci>alongside\u003C/i> ‘real’ legal cases against governments and corporations, allow for a wholesale reimagination of the law through the fictional CICC Act. In the absence of a reimagined legal system and in the urgency of justice for the numerous victims and their families, the PTPK, a ‘real’ people’s tribunal, remained within the existing legal system, demonstrating the repeated \u003Ci>illegality\u003C/i> of the police’s actions and essentially asking: \u003Ci>what if \u003C/i>the international legal system as it currently stands could be held accountable for the crimes (killings) and injustices (subsequent treatment of victims’ families) that the British state, through its agents, continues to commit?\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">28\u003C/span> \u003Ci>What if\u003C/i> numerous victims’ families and loved ones came together to appeal to the law as it exists (all of this sounds like the tactical approach), but to also \u003Ci>use \u003C/i>the law to do something unprecedented (the class-action lawsuit would be the first of its kind), changing the narrative around it and – essentially, insofar as the eventual lawsuit would be against the representatives of the law – \u003Ci>strategically\u003C/i> putting\u003Ci> the law itself on trial\u003C/i>. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>Through the discursive space of the people’s tribunal (this being one of the main opportunities afforded by such assemblies), the various speakers were able to show both the crimes committed (to argue for these being ‘killings’ rather than use the liberal language of ‘deaths in police custody’) \u003Ci>and \u003C/i>to provide a convincing case, in particular through the expert witnesses’ contributions, for the structural racism of the state and its policing institutions. This was also made evident through the dramaturgy of the two days: while each testimony was shattering in and of itself (an affective weight hung heavy in the air of the hall throughout the weekend), the power of the event lay in assembling numerous testimonies into an unfinished chorus that itself testified to systematic, structural injustice and that refused the dominant media narrative of individual cases. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>As Fero and Patterson insist, this is not about legal reform or new legislation that have failed again and again over the decades and are a mere distraction, but is about revolution: in using the law opportunistically, legalism is a means through which, to quote the organisers, to ‘take forward the heritage of families struggle in a way that radically challenges the status quo’, to ‘implement a series of actions to make the real revolutionary change that is needed’.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">29\u003C/span> Moreover, besides encompassing both tactical \u003Ci>and\u003C/i> strategic approaches to the law through principled opportunism, the tribunal performed an impressive balancing act of holding space both for those for whom justice would be seeing the law applied ‘correctly’ (i.e., guilty police officers prosecuted) \u003Ci>and \u003C/i>for those for whom justice remains elsewhere, beyond the law, not as punitive justice but as a transformative justice that centres police and prison abolition, and an epistemic justice that provides space for families and loved ones to rehearse their testimonies on their own terms.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">30\u003C/span>\u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":194,"richTitle":12,"richSubtitle":261,"richText":263},{"html":262},"6",{"html":264},"\u003Cp>To conclude, let us return to the potential of a new cultural space in London. While people’s tribunals such as the recent Gaza Tribunal in London are crucial for assembling expert witnesses and first-hand witnesses and, in this case, arguing not only for the UK government’s complicity in genocide but its participation, I argue that people’s tribunals can also open longer-term, strategic lines. Knox ends ‘Strategy and Tactics’ by asking what the role of critical \u003Ci>scholars\u003C/i> is, suggesting that ‘they can help shape the campaigns of other radicals, who often cleave to a rhetoric of liberal legalism,’ and making reference to a capacity to write in a manner that renders complex theory legible in the broader international political arena. As we saw with the CICC, D’Souza, a legal scholar, took this one step further, dramatising and aestheticising the critique of international law and \u003Ci>staging\u003C/i> a speculative alternative that the audience could actively participate in. This she did, in collaboration with Staal, precisely through the infrastructure of art, which allows for far greater freedom than most academic spaces to assemble a range of practitioners and to frame, narrate, and advertise such a gathering as an ‘event’ to be conceptually engaged with.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">31\u003C/span>\u003C/p>\u003Cp>At present, many artists are exploring the relationship between art and law, including through the tribunal form.\u003Cspan class=\"fn-marker\">32\u003C/span> As Ibraaz opens its new space, one of many challenges would be how to programme works and events that do not simply \u003Ci>represent \u003C/i>the troubled relationship between law and politics that I began with (whether this be in relation to Palestine or otherwise), but that actively engage in the challenge of combining tactical and strategic analysis and intervention in the name of anti-colonial resistance. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>Knox suggests that critical scholars need to focus on how their ‘critique’ can reach a broader community of activists and political actors but, as we have seen with the PTPK, seasoned activists and political actors have much to teach scholars, lawyers, and artists about principled opportunism and people’s justice, about how to negotiate the law as ‘that which we cannot not want’. While some individuals of a certain privileged mobility can move with little friction between art and grassroots activist spaces, the challenge for this new cultural institution is how to ensure that this traffic is bi-directional and to cultivate reciprocal, non-extractive relations in a project of collectively assembling alternative legal and political imaginaries.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>* I extend my thanks to Anthony Downey for commissioning this text and giving me opportunity to think through these issues in writing, and to Niamh Dunphy for the careful copy-edit.\u003C/p>",{"typeHandle":266,"title":267,"richText":268},"footnotes","Notes",{"html":269},"\u003Cp>On the death of international law, see Linda Kindstler, ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://support.theguardian.com/uk/guardian-ad-lite?returnAddress=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flaw%2F2025%2Fjun%2F26%2Fare-we-witnessing-the-death-of-international-law\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Are We Witnessing the Death of International Law\u003C/a>’ \u003Ci>Guardian\u003C/i>, 25 June 2025.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>See the \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://thehaguegroup.org/home/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">website\u003C/a> of the Hague Group\u003C/p>\u003Cp>A recent UN Commission of Inquiry (16 September 2025) has concluded that Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to commit genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, but as I write it is not clear if and how this will have any short-term effect. See ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.un.org/unispal/document/commission-of-inquiry-report-genocide-in-gaza-a-hrc-60-crp-3/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Human Rights Council: Sixtieth Session\u003C/a>’, United Nations, 16 September 2025.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Here I use a phrase employed, respectively, by Wendy Brown (regarding human rights), via Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (regarding liberalism), and Judith Butler (regarding liberal recognition). For Spivak, deconstruction – in the work of Jacques Derrida – is ‘a persistent critique of what one cannot not want’. See Wendy Brown, ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8675.00183\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Suffering Rights as Paradoxes\u003C/a>’, \u003Ci>Constellations\u003C/i>, 28 June 2008; Judith Butler and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, \u003Ci>Who Sings the Nation-State? Language, Politics, Belonging\u003C/i>, Seagull Books, 2007; and ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/spivak/spivak1.html\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: An Introduction\u003C/a>’, \u003Ci>Political Discourse: Theories of Colonialism and Postcolonialism\u003C/i>, undated.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>I thank Shona Illingworth for this phrasing. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>To situate myself: I am a scholar of post/decolonial cultural studies and international politics, and in my current research I engage with the thinking and doing of critical legal scholars, artists, and activists, as this relates to justice within and beyond legal frameworks.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Ananya Bhargava, ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://criticallegalthinking.com/2025/07/09/in-the-crack-a-method-hope-utopia-and-the-critique-of-international-law/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">In the Crack, a Method: Hope, Utopia, and the Critique of International Law\u003C/a>’, \u003Ci>Critical Legal Thinking\u003C/i>, 9 Jul 2025.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>See Tor Krever, et al., ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://academic.oup.com/lril/article-abstract/12/2/217/7723668?redirectedFrom=fulltext\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">On International Law and Gaza: Critical Reflections\u003C/a>’, \u003Ci>London Review of International Law\u003C/i>, vol. 12, no. 2, July 2024.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>See ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/07/highereducation.iraq\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">War would be illegal\u003C/a>’, \u003Ci>Guardian\u003C/i>, 7 March 2003; and Matthew Craven, et al., ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24083/1/__libfile_REPOSITORY_Content_Simpson,%20G_We%20are%20teachers%20of%20International%20Law_We%20are%20teachers%20of%20International%20Law%20(LSERO).pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">We Are Teachers of International Law\u003C/a>’, \u003Ci>Leiden Journal of International Law\u003C/i>, vol. 17, no. 2, 2004.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-gaza-tribunal-in-sarajevo-globalising-genocide-accountability-and-activism/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Gaza Tribunal in Sarajevo: Globalising Genocide Accountability and Activism\u003C/a>’, \u003Ci>EJIL: Talk!\u003C/i>, 27 June 2025. For a discussion of international law as a counter-hegemonic practice, see Aseef Nessouli, ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.acaciamag.com/issue-02/the-limits-of-the-law\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Limits of the Law: An Interview with Legal Scholar and Activist Noura Erakat\u003C/a>’, \u003Ci>Acacia\u003C/i> 2, 2024.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>See Robert Knox, ‘Strategy and Tactics’, \u003Ci>Finnish Yearbook of International Law\u003C/i> 21, 2010, 193–229. To reconstruct the relationship between strategy and tactics, Knox draws from military theory (e.g., Clausewitz) and the Marxist tradition. This is in distinction to Michel de Certeau’s thesis of strategy as the top-down initiatives of governments, for instance, and tactics improvisational, grassroots initiatives as a form of resistance. See \u003Ci>The Practice of Everyday Life\u003C/i>, trans. Stephen Rendall, University of California Press, 1984.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Luis Eslava, ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://criticallegalthinking.com/2019/04/02/twail-coordinates/#:~:text=For%20TWAIL%20scholars%2C%20therefore%2C%20the,about%20a%20longer%20'strategy'.&text=Robert%20Knox%2C%20'Strategy%20and%20Tactics,from%20which%20its%20momentum%20arises.&text=I%20must%20thank%20Jenifer%20Evans,republished%20by%20Critical%20Legal%20Thinking\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">TWAIL Coordinates’\u003C/a>, \u003Ci>Critical Legal Thinking\u003C/i>, 2 April 2019.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>See Tor Krever, ‘From Vietnam to Palestine: People’s Tribunals and the Juridification of Resistance’, in \u003Ci>Making Endless War: The Vietnam and Arab-Israeli Conflicts and the Remaking of International Law\u003C/i>, University of Michigcan Press: 233–61.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>One \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://gazatribunal.com/calendar/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">international tribunal is ongoing\u003C/a> and \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://thegazatribunal.uk/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLl1YVleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFWMHJyR0Y3aXRieVRzTDllAR4mQRnWONZjG_xTVLkVsX6eEtcxhl9HQ4O6ql8QKu_cSol9fJ11gtAxwrdsIg_aem_9dO8f-z51cPHlcvTxKJv8g\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">one took place in London\u003C/a> on 4–5 September 2025.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Krever discusses the shift from the opportunistic embrace of international law by the Russell Tribunal for Vietnam in 1967 to the Russell Tribunal on Palestine (2009–14), which awarded greater prominence to legalism and, for Krever, contributed to what he describes as the ‘juridification of resistance’. See Krever, ‘From Vietnam to Palestine’, 235; see also Tor Krever, ‘Remembering the Russell Tribunal’, \u003Ci>London Review of International Law\u003C/i>, vol. 5, no. 3, November 2017, 483–92; and the Russell Tribunal on Palestine \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/index.html\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">website\u003C/a> .\u003C/p>\u003Cp>See Radha D'Souza and Jonas Staal, \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/whats-on/court-for-intergenerational-climate-crimes-cicc/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">\u003Ci>The Court for Intergenerational Climate Crimes (CICC): The British East India Company on Trial\u003C/i>\u003C/a>, Serpentine, 5–24 April 2025. For extensive documentation and reflections on the first chapter of the CICC, see the Framer Framed (Amsterdam) \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://framerframed.nl/en/court-for-intergenerational-climate-crimes/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">website\u003C/a> and the accompanying publication, Radha D’Souza and Jonas Staal, eds., \u003Ci>Court for Intergenerational Climate Crimes\u003C/i>, Framer Framed, 2024.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>The Intergenerational Climate Crimes Act\u003Ci> \u003C/i>and 2025 Statutes are available in the programme booklet/exhibition companion guide \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://framerframed.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/CICC_booklet_online-ENG.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">online\u003C/a>. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>This 2025 hearing was followed by a pedagogical programme, the CICC School: The British East India Company on Trial, from 8 to 24 April, entailing talks, workshops, assemblies, screenings, guided walks, and performances designed to activate the hearing and to ‘provide additional context for and examining [\u003Ci>sic\u003C/i>] the threads of research that connect intergenerational climate crimes to our present’. See ‘What’s On: CICC School’, Serpentine Gallery \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/whats-on/the-cicc-school/%20.\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">website\u003C/a>. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>See Knox, ‘Strategy and Tactics’, 203.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>Radha D'Souza, \u003Ci>What's Wrong with Rights? Social Movements, Law and Liberal Imaginations,\u003C/i> Pluto, 2018. For an extensive account of the book’s import for the CICC, see ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://framerframed.nl/en/dossier/errant-journal-conversation-dsouza-staal/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">A Conversation between Radha D’Souza and Jonas Staal\u003C/a>’, \u003Ci>Errant Journal\u003C/i> 2, 2021. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>See ‘What’s On: CICC School’, Serpentine Gallery \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/whats-on/the-cicc-school/%20.\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">website\u003C/a>. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>After all, the EIC was dissolved in the 19th century and so it would be impossible to prosecute the corporation with today’s law. But this in fact works in the favour of the hearing as a conceptual and strategic gesture, making it stronger in its placing of the law itself on trial than the previous two chapters, which simulated hearings against nation-states and existing corporations (for instance, the Netherlands and Unilever – each of which is the object of actually existing legal cases). For the opening speech, see ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-NQkgNQt9E\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The British East India Company on Trial (Introduction)\u003C/a>’, Serpentine.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>See Jessica Murray, ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/06/dozens-of-families-join-plan-for-class-action-over-uk-police-contact-deaths\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Dozens of families join plan for class action over UK police contact deaths\u003C/a>', \u003Ci>Guardian\u003C/i> 6 April 2025. For full information, see this 56-page tribunal document, ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://peoplestribunal.info/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/PTPK-Tribunal-Document.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The People’s Tribunal on Police Killings: Tribunal Document, 5–6 April 2025, London\u003C/a>’. The families participating include the loved ones of: Brian Douglas, Ibrahima Sey, Roger Sylvester, Christopher Alder, Mouayed Bashir, Shiji Lapite, Jason McPherson, Kebba Jobe, Rashan Charles, Paul Coker, Joy Gardner, Adrian McDonald, Sean Rigg, Henry Hicks, Mikey Powell, Kevin Clarke, Lloyd Butler, Ronaldo Johnson, Azelle Rodney, Harry Stanley, Aseta Simms, Kingsley Burrell, Leon Patterson, Olaseni Lewis, Sheku Bayoh, Nuur Saaed, Liam Phillips, and Souheil El Khalfaoui. The expert witnesses were Professor Gus John, Professor Gargi Bhattacharyya, Paul O’Connor (The Pat Finucane Centre, Derry), Dr Asim Qureshi (Research Director at CAGE UK), Luke Daniels (counsellor). The tribunal panel was comprised of Mireille Fanon Mendès-France (Frantz Fanon Foundation, Martinique/France), Dr Mona El-Farra (human rights and healthcare advocate, Palestine), Dr Joy James (Ebenezer Fitch Professor of Humanities at Williams College, USA), Emerson Caetano (Senior Fellow UN International Decade for People of African Descent, Brazil), Tony Doherty (Bloody Sunday Trust, Ireland), and Esther Mamadou-Blanco (International Coalition for People of African Descent, Spain).\u003C/p>\u003Cp>There was a strong intergenerational element. In the tribunal press release, we read: ‘A new generation is emerging, the children and grandchildren of those killed by the police continue to call for justice but the appeal is no longer to the British state. It is international.’ ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://peoples-tribunal.org/2025/02/16/announcement-of-the-ptpks-first-session-5-6-april-2025/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Announcement of the PTPK’s First Session 5-6 April 2025\u003C/a>’, The People’s Tribunal, 16 February 2025.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>See ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgA8uCdOzvA\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The People’s Tribunal on Police Killings – with Ken Fero & Samantha Patterson\u003C/a>’, interview by Frank Barat, posted 30 March 2025, by Frank Barat, YouTube. See note 6. Palestine loomed large throughout the weekend. Early on in her opening speech for the CICC, Radha D’Souza evoked the parallel histories of the occupation of Palestine and the writing of clauses on self-determination in the UN Charter, asking why it is that the conflict remains unresolved and if anything gets worse with each General Assembly resolution, and outlining the unresolved legacies of the British Empire in the current genocide. Hence my proposal that, while the focus was not Palestine, the hearing in fact provides many tools through which to think about the dilemmas I have sketched out above regarding the current genocide. At the PTPK, one of the expert panel members was Dr Mona El-Farra, a Palestinian human rights activist, based in Gaza, who frequently underlined the resonances between the testimonies heard over the weekend in the context of the UK and the colonial, racist violence carried out by the Israeli state against Palestinians. See ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-NQkgNQt9E\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The British East India Company on Trial (Introduction)\u003C/a>’, posted 14 May 2025, by Serpentine, YouTube.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>In an interview with organiser of the Russell Tribunal for Palestine, Frank Barat, Fero speaks of the tribunal’s actions as both political and legal, rejecting liberal approaches, and of the tribunal’s politics of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism that are necessary to tackle state killings. See ‘The People’s Tribunal on Police Killings – with Ken Fero & Samantha Patterson’.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>On the concept of ‘potential history’, see Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, \u003Ci>Potential History: Unlearning Imperialism\u003C/i>, Verso, 2019.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>I use the term ‘real’ lightly here since all people’s tribunals are fictional to some degree, insofar as they do not have legal enforceability and their power lies in their being ‘courts of the people’.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>See The People’s Tribunal on Police Killings \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://peoplestribunal.info/tribunal/on-police-killings/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">website\u003C/a>.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>The abolitionist approach was clear for those listening for it in the framing of the event by organisers, and in particular in the decision to invite US prison abolitionist activist and academic Joy James (organiser with Black Power Media) to be part of the international panel and to respond to the testimonies through this lens. The tribunal ended powerfully with James’s reading of a ‘10-Point Program for Teachers and Healers’, a reference to the Black Panther Party’s 1966 ‘10-Point Program’. Point 9 read as follows: ‘The right to work with and beyond existing human rights and civil rights frameworks. As important as the international traditional mandates are, they’re still intimidated by the state itself, particularly the ones that present as empire, and so we can work with these formations, but we also have to work, as you already know, around them and against them when they betray us.’ See Joy James’s \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://sites.williams.edu/jjames/police-and-prison-abolitionism/\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">website\u003C/a> for further abolitionist writing. On day 2 (see 1hr 28 mins into the YouTube recording), expert witness Luke Daniels spoke powerfully of the witnesses’ seasoned performances, as witnesses, of the centrality of trauma, and of the continued gaslighting of survivors by the police. ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsVNINM9s5w\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">People’s Tribunal on Police Killings 6th April 2025\u003C/a>’, posted 8 July 2025, by Migrant Media, YouTube.\u003C/p>\u003Cp>I use ‘infrastructures of art’ rather than ‘artists’ here because in my broader analysis of the creative dramaturgy of people’s tribunals and their rehearsals of people’s justice (justice otherwise, within or beyond the law), I resist the classifications between artist, activist, lawyer, (expert) witness, researcher, and so on, instead arguing that each of these non-state positions has the potential for creative intervention into politico-legal contexts. Rather, I propose that cultural institutions, for all their potential problematics, hold a privileged position for \u003Ci>assembling \u003C/i>a range of stakeholders and concerned participants that, for a variety of reasons, is less available to other infrastructures or collectivities. While a longer discussion of Jonas Staal’s practice is not possible here, I see in many of his projects – carried out with political activists – a similar gesture of utilising the opportunities afforded by cultural infrastructures in order to assemble diverse publics and, very simply put, to highlight and work with the aesthetics that always already exists in politics. \u003C/p>\u003Cp>For a discussion of the tribunal form, see Daniel Loick, ‘\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.e-flux.com/journal/135/530242/on-tribunalism-should-artists-use-the-court-form\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">On Tribunalism: Should Artists Use the Court Form\u003C/a>?’, \u003Ci>e-flux \u003C/i>135, April 2023. \u003C/p>",[271],{"title":272,"relatedEntries":273},"Related",[274,294,311],{"typeHandle":275,"entries":276},"channelsEntries",[277],{"title":278,"uri":279,"image":280,"readCategories":286,"writeCategories":287,"missionCategories":288,"authorInfo":291},"Firestarter","ibraaz-publishing/mission-statement/firestarter",[281],{"id":282,"path":283,"alt":12,"title":278,"width":284,"height":285,"mimeType":16},"5100","Mission-Gathering/FIRESTARTER/Firestarter.png",2160,2700,[],[],[289],{"title":93,"slug":290},"mission-statement",[292],{"authorName":293},"Francesca Albanese",{"typeHandle":275,"entries":295},[296],{"title":297,"uri":298,"image":299,"readCategories":304,"writeCategories":305,"missionCategories":306,"authorInfo":308},"3. Who Are Our Audiences, Users, Protagonists?","ibraaz-publishing/mission-statement/session-3-who-are-our-audiences-users-protagonists",[300],{"id":301,"path":302,"alt":12,"title":303,"width":284,"height":285,"mimeType":16},"2902","Mission-Gathering/Session-3.png","Session 3",[],[],[307],{"title":93,"slug":290},[309],{"authorName":310},"Jonas Staal, Nadja Argyropoulou, Basma al-Sharif",{"typeHandle":275,"entries":312},[313],{"title":314,"uri":315,"image":316,"readCategories":323,"writeCategories":325,"missionCategories":326,"authorInfo":327},"Algorithmic Visions: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare","ibraaz-publishing/read/algorithmic-visions-artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-warfare",[317],{"id":318,"path":319,"alt":12,"title":320,"width":321,"height":322,"mimeType":16},"5794","Algorithmic-Visions-Artificial-Intelligence-and-the-Future-of-Warfare/Screenshot-2025-10-02-at-09.58.39.png","Screenshot 2025 10 02 at 09 58 39",1614,888,[324],{"title":168,"slug":169},[],[],[328],{"authorName":329},"Anthony Downey",{"categories":331},[332,337,341,345,349,353,357,361],{"id":333,"slug":334,"title":335,"groupHandle":336},"4488","exhibitions","Exhibition","events",{"id":338,"slug":339,"title":340,"groupHandle":336},"4490","talks","Talk",{"id":342,"slug":343,"title":344,"groupHandle":336},"15579","music","Music",{"id":346,"slug":347,"title":348,"groupHandle":336},"4489","performance","Performance",{"id":350,"slug":351,"title":352,"groupHandle":336},"4492","film","Film",{"id":354,"slug":355,"title":356,"groupHandle":336},"6390","library-in-residence","Library-in-Residence",{"id":358,"slug":359,"title":360,"groupHandle":336},"18154","special-projects","Special Project",{"id":362,"slug":363,"title":364,"groupHandle":336},"18170","workshops","Workshop"]