International Criminal Law

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.

A new ICC policy provides a valuable framework for the investigation of cyber-enabled international crimes.

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

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.

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.

For international criminal law to remain a compelling set of norms, the central principles that formed Nuremberg must be vigorously defended.

Why did Maduro tell the judge he's still president? One reason: under international law, one country's sitting head of state can’t be prosecuted in another country’s courts.

Compromising on prosecutions for Russian atrocities would erode the system of international justice built since Nuremberg and undermine the rule of law itself.

James Goldston and Esti Tambay present their organization's work, a Memorandum supporting efforts to hold officials accountable for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.

More cyber litigation will appear on the docket as pathways to legal accountability for unlawful State-sponsored cyber operations strengthen.