International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Ensuring algorithms recognize protected emblems is an achievable first step to protect civilians and prevent future AI-enabled tragedies.

A U.S. military operation resulting in such a civilian death toll as the Minab school strike in Iran demands a credible, thorough Pentagon investigation.

Leading legal experts' Q&A analyzes how the law of armed conflict applies to U.S., Israeli, and Iranian strikes - with a focus on targeting rules and civilian protections.

The law of armed conflict demands that we take the Minab school strike seriously to learn, to reform, and to prevent the next failure.

In the Iran war, when do critical infrastructure and economic assets qualify as lawful military objectives under the law of armed conflict.

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

The Iran War and the public rupture between DoD and Anthropic point to a fundamental imbalance in current military AI.

Hegseth's "no quarter" statement indicates how some in the Pentagon perceive the Iran war. "No quarter" language in US history has appeared when war turns colonial or racial.

The relationship between regime change and IHL is of inherent tension, incentivizing battlefields where the law is viewed as an obstacle rather than an essential constraint.

Top legal experts on the law of naval warfare break down the key issues in the Iran-U.S.-Israel conflict.

"During my own transits through the Strait as a naval officer aboard the aircraft carrier USS Constellation, the narrow geography and proximity of Iranian territory were impossible…

A hypothetical General Counsel advice to Secretary Hegseth about his "no quarter" statement in Iran war.