International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In Gambia v. Myanmar, genocidal intent coexists with other aims, revealed through conduct or official statements, showing how destruction of a group can serve broader goals.

As the war in Ukraine continues to unfold, international lawyers must keep insisting that law be injected into diplomacy and accountability into power politics.

​The ICRC's updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention fills a loophole-closing function and reasserts international humanitarian law's core protective purpose.

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?

A review of what law and lawyers have contributed toward the goal of a just and lawful peace in Ukraine over the past four years.

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. 

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.

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

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