International Justice

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.

The relationship between the U.S. and its island territories should concern anyone who believes in the “consent of the governed” and the idea of “all created equal."

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

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

The new U.N. Cybercrime Convention may create new avenues to hold Russia - and all states parties - accountable at the International Court of Justice.

The Trump administration's withdrawal from dozens of international structures contradicts polls showing Americans broadly support multilateralism, alliances, and human rights.

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.