International Courts

Coverage of key developments, including in concise “What Just Happened” expert explainers, legal and policy analysis, and more. Check back frequently for updates.

The first criminal trial against a senior Assad regime official comes at a time when Syria’s legal framework remains fragile.

A catalog of over 100 articles (many with Ukrainian translations) on the Russia Ukraine War -- law, diplomacy, policy options, and more.

A South Korean judge on how the South Korean judicial system served as a bulwark of democratic resilience in the face of a constitutional crisis.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights' recent advisory opinion addresses the obligations of States and private actors to prevent and combat illicit trafficking of firearms.

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.

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?

The human rights crisis in Iran reveals the limits of a legal system designed to restrain force even when restraint carries profound human costs.

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.