Law of Armed Conflict/IHL

The Senate's hearing with Rubio offered little solace to those concerned about the use of force against Venezuela.

Although ICC intervention does appear to deter atrocities, on balance, its involvement in ongoing civil wars fails to facilitate peaceful settlement in most cases.

The relationship between international courts and States shapes how they provide accountability, build peace, and respond to backlash.

International courts rarely end wars, but when designed humbly, creatively, and fairly, they can help parties choose law over war—turning justice into a path toward peace.

This article examines how the ICJ and ICC navigate legitimacy challenges in armed conflicts, testing their authority, fairness, and impact on global peace and justice.

Judicial involvement in ongoing armed conflicts should be examined from multiple vantage points: courts, victims, parties to conflict, and broader goals of peace and security.

Did the Sept. 2 strike on suspected drug traffickers using an unmarked aircraft violate the prohibition on perfidy, or other LOAC rules, had there been an armed conflict?

Intelligence has a central role to play in capitalizing on the successful capture of Maduro and stabilizing post-Maduro Venezuela, demonstrating U.S. capabilities and resolve.

Did the president have the authority under U.S. law to undertake Operation Absolute Resolve without congressional authorization? Leading experts say he did not.

Expert FAQ on the U.S. military operations against Venezuela, high seas boat strikes, seizure of vessels and more.

Expert analysis of the announced U.S. military blockade of Venezuela

Experts examine the international law basis of the U.S. boarding and seizure of a vessel carrying Venezuelan crude.