International Human Rights Law

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.

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.

Myanmar appears to have changed its position in Gambia v. Myanmar, a historic genocide case before the ICJ. This change may prove decisive in the court's pending decision. 

The ICJ should explicitly interpret ‘intentionally’ killing members of a group to include dolus directus and dolus eventualis in the case brought by Gambia against Myanmar.

As the ICJ hears Gambia v. Myanmar, the Court should continue to consider “patterns of conduct,” while weighing this evidence with other sources for genocidal intent.

Did the president have the authority under U.S. law to undertake Operation Absolute Resolve without congressional authorization? Leading experts say he did not.

Expert FAQ on the U.S. military operations against Venezuela, high seas boat strikes, seizure of vessels and more.

Operation Southern Spear’s lethal boat strikes are unlawful under IHRL and, even on the administration’s own terms, trigger binding LOAC and DoD duties to investigate.

Detailing how, under different scenarios, international law and U.S. past practices apply to Sept. 2 boat strike on survivors.

Recent developments are deepening European officials' existing unease about Washington's steadiness as a security partner.

If the United States chooses a path where killing defenseless survivors becomes acceptable, American servicemembers will pay the price for that choice.