International Human Rights Law

Analysis of U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean and the legal consequences of classifying them as arbitrary killings or war crimes under international law.

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.

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.

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."

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.