UN Charter

"The tensions we have identified are particularly acute when a State faces an existential threat and, as in here, from an enemy long committed to radically unlawful behavior."

An assessment of the United Kingdom's ability to maintain a legal line between defensive versus offensive operations against Iran.

What Congress, journalists, and the public should ask the Trump administration about its war in Iran.

Analysis of the legality of U.S.-Israel actions against Iran, Iran’s response, and third-party states’ legal options and obligations under the UN Charter.

The legal memo justifying its Venezuela operations provides insight into the administration's use-of-force decisions and the factual evidence undergirding them.

Positions taken at the UN Security Council are a harbinger of whether the legal cornerstone of the international order that is designed to maintain world peace can hold.

The human rights crisis in Iran reveals the limits of a legal system designed to restrain force even when restraint carries profound human costs.

UN80’s promise of renewal risks fading into bureaucracy. The United Nations must reform honestly, protect its mission, and adapt to survive amid resurgent power politics.

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

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.

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.

Would NATO have to defend Denmark if the United States attempted to seize Greenland? Article 5 suggests other allies are obligated to come to Denmark's defense if requested.