Accountability

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.

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.