International Justice

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 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.

An international convention on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity would be a visible step toward accountability.

An expert overview of the draft articles produced by the ILC for the upcoming U.N. conference on a Crimes Against Humanity Treaty.

A symposium featured expert analyses of issues related to advancing the draft International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity.

For international criminal law to remain a compelling set of norms, the central principles that formed Nuremberg must be vigorously defended.