International Criminal Court (ICC)

The evidence in the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab report demonstrates that the world is watching and gathering information to eventually bring those responsible to account.

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.

​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?

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.

The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine is a step toward closing a longstanding gap in international criminal accountability.

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. 

If governments are serious about accountability for atrocities, they must start following the money and treating international crimes like the big business they are.

By heeding the warning bells and embracing a do‑no‑harm principle, international courts can denounce abuse while preserving the credibility of international justice.