Armed Conflicts

The Trump administration's lethal strikes are the apotheosis of the last quarter century's often always secret and often unreviewable executive branch legal reasoning.

Analysis of Germany's argument before the International Court of Justice in Gaza case.

The science is sound, the stockpile is strong, and the call to test a nuclear bomb has no technical foundation. Resuming testing would not make America safer.

A mock “operational legal review” depicting what a staff judge advocate’s advice should have been prior to the first reported strike on an alleged drug trafficking vessel.

Civilian harm is not entirely avoidable during armed conflict, but it can be anticipated and its severity limited. In Asia-Pacific, this depends entirely on steps taken now.

The only way States can avoid complicity in “arbitrary killings” under international human rights law is to refrain from sharing intelligence that, in part, enables them.

Trump’s threat of military intervention in Nigeria may be intended more for domestic audiences and wouldn't address the drivers of the country's conflict.

Israeli international law scholars write about their prior letter published by Just Security and a recent article published at Just Security as well.

The credibility of the U.N.'s human rights framework depends on whether it can confront a systematic experiment in gender oppression with more than statements of alarm.

An eight-point statement signed by 270 international law scholars demonstrates a convergence of views on Gaza and international law.

The EU should firm up its policy to help Bosnia advance toward EU membership with democratic governance. Only in this way can long-term stability be assured.

James Goldston and Esti Tambay present their organization's work, a Memorandum supporting efforts to hold officials accountable for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.