International Justice

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.

Three theories by which POW status might attach to a person in Maduro’s position, and the consequences of entitlement to that status.

A catalog of articles analyzing the diplomatic, political, legal, security, and humanitarian consequences of the international climate crisis.

A new treaty on crimes against humanity will require extensive dialogue and ongoing efforts to engage delegations about the substantive issues.

The Gambia has not shifted the burden of proof in the Gambia v. Myanmar ICJ case; rather, Myanmar faces a tactical choice in its response.

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.