International Criminal Law

A new ICC policy provides a valuable framework for the investigation of cyber-enabled international crimes.

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

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.

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.

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

The ICC Appeals Chamber affirmed the case against Israeli leaders, narrowing Article 18 complementarity and raising concerns about the Court’s treatment of non-member states.

Why did Maduro tell the judge he's still president? One reason: under international law, one country's sitting head of state can’t be prosecuted in another country’s courts.

Just Security, as a co-sponsor of International Law Weekend 2025, is pleased to feature a series centered around the event's theme: "Crisis as Catalyst in International Law."

An amnesty in any future peace plan would be unlawful and a moral abdication of the pursuit of accountability for victims in Russia's war in Ukraine.

Compromising on prosecutions for Russian atrocities would erode the system of international justice built since Nuremberg and undermine the rule of law itself.