Use of Force

In his threats against Greenland, President Trump has violated the U.N. Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, and Section 1928f, prompting Congress to take swift action.

As Iranians protested for freedom, the regime intensified its assault on writers and dissenters, silencing key voices like Narges Mohammadi and Ali Asadollahi.

In Burnley v. United States, relatives sue on behalf of two Trinidadian men killed in a boat strike, confronting U.S. sovereign immunity and the political question doctrine.

In‑depth legal examination of the U.S. capture of the Russian‑flagged tanker Marinera and its implications under the law of naval warfare.

Any acquisition of Greenland by the United States–whether by force or through coerced agreement–would directly violate fundamental principles of international law.

This hypothetical legal review imagines what a senior judge advocate’s legal analysis would be if ordered to plan a U.S. military operation in Greenland without Denmark's consent.

This is an Iranian uprising, and it is up to the people of Iran to decide their own future.

Trump’s threats to invade Greenland risk destroying NATO itself, but a little-known statute, 22 U.S.C. 1928f, could prevent him from doing just that.

Based on the publicly available information to date, it is difficult to sustain the lawfulness of the U.S.-led and UK-supported seizure of the Marinera.

Would NATO have to defend Denmark if the United States attempted to seize Greenland? Article 5 suggests other allies are obligated to come to Denmark's defense if requested.

The last year of unauthorized military interventions and the president’s threats should spur Congress to reassert its constitutional prerogatives over the use of force.

Trump’s foreign policy remains an inconsistent array of initiatives and adventures: bold in Latin America, bad in Greenland, yet often constructive on Ukrainian security.