international justice

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.

Just Security, as a co-sponsor of International Law Weekend 2025, is pleased to feature a series centered around the event's theme: "Crisis as Catalyst in International Law."

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

The ICC’s legitimacy is under scrutiny, and every internal shortcoming becomes evidence for those who argue that international justice is politicized or hypocritical.

Across Latin America, political elites are quietly passing laws that narrow definitions, shield allies, and block legal pathways to investigate corruption and organized crime.

The U.N.’s survival depends on how it positions itself between the elephant and the mouse, in South America and the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, and beyond.

The October 7th massacre and unprecedented war in Gaza compel Israel to rethink its conception of security. It must include a gender-based analysis.

To see crisis as catalyst is to reject fatalism and to believe that law can be both a shield and a compass in turbulent times. #ILW2025 aims to honor that belief.