International Justice

​The ICRC's updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention fills a loophole-closing function and reasserts international humanitarian law's core protective purpose.

Given international courts current role and relevant limitations in ending wars, how can courts play a more meaningful role in ending war, or in preventing a return to war?

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.

Although international courts have limits, they can do what few other peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms can when it comes to ending war.

The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine is a step toward closing a longstanding gap in international criminal accountability.

The case of a jailed journalist in the Philippines is a warning for how efforts to counter terrorism financing can be manipulated into political tools of repression.

When international courts intervene in active wars, they must contend with how (and whether) they can contribute to ending wars and shape the post-war aftermath. 

If governments are serious about accountability for atrocities, they must start following the money and treating international crimes like the big business they are.

The Global Coalition Against Daesh faces legal and moral strain over mass detainee transfers from Syria to Iraq, testing international law and policy.

By heeding the warning bells and embracing a do‑no‑harm principle, international courts can denounce abuse while preserving the credibility of international justice.

An analysis of the ICC’s warrants against Putin and Lvova-Belova, exploring their real impact on diplomacy, deterrence, and justice in Ukraine.

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