International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The new U.N. Cybercrime Convention may create new avenues to hold Russia - and all states parties - accountable at the International Court of Justice.

International courts rarely end wars, but when designed humbly, creatively, and fairly, they can help parties choose law over war—turning justice into a path toward peace.

The Gambia has not shifted the burden of proof in the Gambia v. Myanmar ICJ case; rather, Myanmar faces a tactical choice in its response.

This article examines how the ICJ and ICC navigate legitimacy challenges in armed conflicts, testing their authority, fairness, and impact on global peace and justice.

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.

Myanmar appears to have changed its position in Gambia v. Myanmar, a historic genocide case before the ICJ. This change may prove decisive in the court's pending decision. 

The ICJ should explicitly interpret ‘intentionally’ killing members of a group to include dolus directus and dolus eventualis in the case brought by Gambia against Myanmar.

As the ICJ hears Gambia v. Myanmar, the Court should continue to consider “patterns of conduct,” while weighing this evidence with other sources for genocidal intent.

Litigants from Africa and the African diaspora are doing more than “using” courts during emergencies. They are actively shaping doctrine.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 2797 endorses Morocco's Autonomy Plan for Western Sahara, normalizing domination in a U.S.-China-Russia tripolar order.

Analysis of Germany's argument before the International Court of Justice in Gaza case.

Unpacking the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on Israel's obligations towards the UN and others to provide humanitarian aid in the West Bank and Gaza.