international justice

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. 

The Global Coalition Against Daesh faces legal and moral strain over mass detainee transfers from Syria to Iraq, testing international law and policy.

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

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.

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

The new U.N. Cybercrime Convention may create new avenues to hold Russia - and all states parties - accountable at the International Court of Justice.

The Trump administration's withdrawal from dozens of international structures contradicts polls showing Americans broadly support multilateralism, alliances, and human rights.

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.

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

An expert backgrounder on the reported Hegseth "no quarter" order to kill everyone aboard a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean on Sept. 2.