Accountability

Judge Schiltz’s orders in Tobay Robles v. Noem expose 96 ICE court-order violations in one month and show how forcing top officials to testify can restore the rule of law.

In Gambia v. Myanmar, genocidal intent coexists with other aims, revealed through conduct or official statements, showing how destruction of a group can serve broader goals.

Updating a tracker of persistent rhetoric by Russian leaders and their associates -- more than 500 examples -- that may constitute evidence of genocidal intent.

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

The most comprehensive timeline to date of the publicly available record on New York law enforcement authorities’ action and inaction with regard to Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell…

DHS says ICE agents can enter homes to arrest noncitizens using administrative warrants, without judicial oversight. DHS's position has no legal basis.

Given international courts current role and relevant limitations in ending wars, how can courts play a more meaningful role in ending war, or in preventing a return to war?

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.

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

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.

Although international courts have limits, they can do what few other peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms can when it comes to ending war.

The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine is a step toward closing a longstanding gap in international criminal accountability.