International Justice

Surveys how the 2025 ICRC GC IV Commentary integrates technology into its analysis of specific rules, while raising concerns about its treatment of data as property.

Analysis of the legality of U.S.-Israel actions against Iran, Iran’s response, and third-party states’ legal options and obligations under the UN Charter.

New Commentary on GC IV describes Article 23—the treaty’s key provision governing the duty to allow the passage of essentials to civilians—as "significantly diminished" today.

Responsible states can end the chaos and suffering in remaining camps like Roj by repatriating detainees and upholding their obligations to their citizens.

In Gambia v. Myanmar, genocidal intent coexists with other aims, revealed through conduct or official statements, showing how destruction of a group can serve broader goals.

Updating a tracker of persistent rhetoric by Russian leaders and their associates -- more than 500 examples -- that may constitute evidence of genocidal intent.

​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.