Armed Conflicts

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.

The relevance of women to conflict, democratic resilience, and peacebuilding is evidence-based, yet they are commonly overlooked in forecasting and response.

A year ago, the Trump administration seized the U.S. Institute of Peace and began to dismantle it, gutting a key capability to reduce and prevent violent conflict.

Top legal experts on the law of naval warfare break down the key issues in the Iran-U.S.-Israel conflict.

"During my own transits through the Strait as a naval officer aboard the aircraft carrier USS Constellation, the narrow geography and proximity of Iranian territory were impossible…

A hypothetical General Counsel advice to Secretary Hegseth about his "no quarter" statement in Iran war.

The U.S. military continues maritime strikes on alleged drug smugglers and may now be hitting targets on land. Brian Finucane analyzes Trump’s latest War Powers report.

Do data centers qualify as lawful military objectives? If so, under what circumstances are they subject to attack? And what precautions must be taken before targeting them?