Eurovision Meets International Law: What to say at the Dinner Table (in 3 minutes)
By Yusra Suedi (PhD, Assistant Professor of International Law at University of Manchester)
Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Slovenia have all announced they will boycott next year’s Eurovision Song Contest because Israel will be allowed to participate.
These countries say Israel has violated international law in Gaza, especially since 7 October 2023.
What does international law actually have to do with Eurovision?
Let’s lay out the debate for your next dinner-time conversation.
Does international law have a place at Eurovision?
No:
Some people (e.g., your cousin Marge) will say that Eurovision isn’t officially tied to international law in any real, structural way.
The contest is run by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), a Swiss-based association of broadcasting organisations.
It is nothing like the UN, the EU or NATO, which are actual international organisations dealing with international law-related issues, created by countries through agreements.
So, they’ll argue, Eurovision simply isn’t a place where questions about who’s breaking which international law really belong.
Yes:
Others will argue (whilst helping themselves to more salad) that in reality, Eurovision is a cultural stage for countries.
They perform under their flags, national broadcasters select national entries and governments celebrate victories (or fume over losses).
In that sense, Eurovision becomes one of the many informal channels through which countries act, react and relate to each other. It could be seen as a space for soft diplomacy.
Once you see it that way, it makes perfect sense that the contest has become a site where international law debates spill over – even though EBU says it’s apolitical.
History backs this up: The EBU itself banned Russia from participating in Eurovision 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine! (Russia has since set up its own song contest called Intervision though, so there.)
Do countries have a duty under international law to boycott?
Many will say there’s a moral duty to stand up to bad behaviour. But is there a legal duty… and one that other European countries might have to follow? (Yes, we’re adding spice to this conversation!)
No:
International law has something called the duty of non-recognition – basically, a rule that says countries must not treat certain serious violations of international law as normal or legitimate (here, at Article 41(2)).
In this situation, that would normally translate into things like not giving Israel any weapons or not recognizing the way Israel divides Gazan territory.
It wouldn’t require banning Israel from Eurovision, since the contest isn’t governed by international law (as Marge said earlier) and a boycott wouldn’t directly change the situation on the ground.
So there is no legal requirement for any other European country to follow the lead of Ireland and its allies.
Yes:
It doesn’t really matter where or how non-recognition should be expressed.
Countries have applied their duty of non-recognition in cultural arenas before.
For example: In response to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, more than 60 countries (led by the USA) refused to send athletes to the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow.
Another example is the 1986 boycott of the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh by several African, Asian, and Caribbean countries, protesting the UK government’s refusal to sanction apartheid South Africa.
So, applying non-recognition logic to high-profile cultural normalisation is not unthinkable.
Allowing a country to appear, under its flag, on a high-visibility international stage can be seen as a form of recognising its ordinary standing in the world.
As all countries have a duty of non-recognition, European countries would have to uphold that in this context, too (by, for example, boycotting).
Discuss!
If you’re still discussing by the time you get to dessert (or tea, my personal preference), here’s a takeaway: international law seeps into everyday culture and isn’t limited to hallways of the UN in Geneva or New York.
It shows up in unexpected places: sequins, ballads, and televotes.
International cultural bodies haven’t always shied away from this: The Olympics banned South Africa for apartheid and Afghanistan over women’s rights violations.
Some of them don’t want to shy away: FIFA just gave Trump an inaugural peace prize!
Whatever decisions are (or are not) made, the surrounding controversy inescapable.
The EBU decided to exclude Russia from Eurovision to avoid “bringing the competition into disrepute” – in other words, to avoid making the contest look bad, unethical, or untrustworthy to the public.
But has its decision not to exclude Israel had the same effect? What do you think? Let me know in the comments!