courts

Former senior officials explain why the Trump administration's argument in Noem v. Al Otro Lado is morally troubling and legally wrong.

Judge Schiltz’s orders in Tobay Robles v. Noem expose 96 ICE court-order violations in one month and show how forcing top officials to testify can restore the rule of law.

Given international courts current role and relevant limitations in ending wars, how can courts play a more meaningful role in ending war, or in preventing a return to war?

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.

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. 

“Alien land laws” frame Asian land ownership as a national security threat despite minimal evidence, echoing the United States’ historical exclusionary policies.

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

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

President Arévalo's state of emergency provides him a short window to use the gang crackdown to also crack open the country's structures of impunity.

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

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