International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

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.

Do data centers qualify as lawful military objectives? If so, under what circumstances are they subject to attack? And what precautions must be taken before targeting them?

"I am sure some restrictionists will critique my analysis by claiming it is not grounded in orthodox interpretations of international law."

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.