Accountability

When international courts intervene in active wars, they must contend with how (and whether) they can contribute to ending wars and shape the post-war aftermath. 

The Trump administration's government partnerships for healthcare aid will require processes that prioritize transparency, meaningful local ownership, and accountability.

By heeding the warning bells and embracing a do‑no‑harm principle, international courts can denounce abuse while preserving the credibility of international justice.

Experts detail targeted reforms and legislative pathways Congress could enact to improve ICE and CBP accountability.

An analysis of the ICC’s warrants against Putin and Lvova-Belova, exploring their real impact on diplomacy, deterrence, and justice in Ukraine.

Sworn declarations in ACLU’s Minnesota lawsuit describe masked ICE agents using violent, warrantless arrests targeting Somali and Latino US citizens, legal residents.

CBP’s handling of the investigation into Alex Pretti's death signals a troubling shift away from the agency’s commitment to transparency and accountability.

Although ICC intervention does appear to deter atrocities, on balance, its involvement in ongoing civil wars fails to facilitate peaceful settlement in most cases.

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.

A new ICC policy provides a valuable framework for the investigation of cyber-enabled international crimes.

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.