courts

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.

A deep dive into the Trump administration’s first-year deregulatory agenda, Supreme Court influences, and the evolving limits of agency authority.

The relationship between international courts and States shapes how they provide accountability, build peace, and respond to backlash.

In Burnley v. United States, relatives sue on behalf of two Trinidadian men killed in a boat strike, confronting U.S. sovereign immunity and the political question doctrine.