NATO

Experts examine legal, political, and security dimensions of U.S. policy on Greenland, including U.S.-NATO relations, congressional oversight, and geopolitical implications.  

As U.S. security commitments to Europe grow conditional, it is clear the old relationship is not recoverable. The question is what Europeans build in its place, and how fast.

As the war in Ukraine continues to unfold, international lawyers must keep insisting that law be injected into diplomacy and accountability into power politics.

A review of what law and lawyers have contributed toward the goal of a just and lawful peace in Ukraine over the past four years.

Russia’s long war on Ukraine is a world-shaping conflict, and only sustained U.S. and European pressure can secure the continent's future and the global order.

Can Bosnia's leaders advance U.S.-backed investments to strengthen its democratic future in the face of a separatist's growing influence in Washington?

In his threats against Greenland, President Trump has violated the U.N. Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, and Section 1928f, prompting Congress to take swift action.

The Trump administration's withdrawal from dozens of international structures contradicts polls showing Americans broadly support multilateralism, alliances, and human rights.

Any acquisition of Greenland by the United States–whether by force or through coerced agreement–would directly violate fundamental principles of international law.

This hypothetical legal review imagines what a senior judge advocate’s legal analysis would be if ordered to plan a U.S. military operation in Greenland without Denmark's consent.

Trump’s threats to invade Greenland risk destroying NATO itself, but a little-known statute, 22 U.S.C. 1928f, could prevent him from doing just that.

The challenge is not recognition of Greenland’s importance; it is ensuring that security enhancements are strategic, sustainable, and allied-driven.