International Court of Justice (ICJ)

U.S. policies of funding rebel groups to achieve shared strategic objectives while turning a blind eye to ideology and international law has proven to be myopic time and again

Just Security's collection of more than 110 articles covering the Israel-Hamas War and its diplomatic, legal, and humanitarian consequences.

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

Surveys how the 2025 ICRC GC IV Commentary integrates technology into its analysis of specific rules, while raising concerns about its treatment of data as property.

New Commentary on GC IV describes Article 23—the treaty’s key provision governing the duty to allow the passage of essentials to civilians—as "significantly diminished" today.

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.