Armed Conflicts

Former US Navy Commander, JAGC Mark Nevitt provides a legal and operational update on the Strait of Hormuz crisis, including Iran’s military role and imposition of tolls.

Reprisals demand trust between adversaries, yet they often spark escalation. Their ban under international law is both moral and practical.

Hegseth may present his version of a warfighter as the paragon of U.S. military power, but for all his talk, he fails to recognize the true strengths of the armed forces.

Former JAGs warn that threats to strike Iran’s power plants would violate the law of war and endanger U.S. service members’ legal and moral obligations.

The U.S. should link Lebanese state-building and Hezbollah disarmament through a political process, not war, to secure a durable Israel-Lebanon ceasefire.

Leading expert on U.S. legal reviews of new weapons systems discusses Precision Strike Missiles deployed in Iran war.

Leading legal experts' Q&A analyzes how the law of armed conflict applies to U.S., Israeli, and Iranian strikes - with a focus on targeting rules and civilian protections.

In the Iran war, when do critical infrastructure and economic assets qualify as lawful military objectives under the law of armed conflict.

It is the violation of fundamental principles of international law that ultimately constitutes an existential threat to all members of the international community.

Iran’s staying power is not proof that the regime is strong; it is proof that it read the American way of war playbook. This forces a hard look at U.S. military assumptions.

Hegseth's "no quarter" statement indicates how some in the Pentagon perceive the Iran war. "No quarter" language in US history has appeared when war turns colonial or racial.

The relationship between regime change and IHL is of inherent tension, incentivizing battlefields where the law is viewed as an obstacle rather than an essential constraint.