International Law

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s argument that Operation Epic Fury was an act of preemptive self-defense is not credible and does not satisfy the necessary precondition.

Analysis of the legality of U.S.-Israel actions against Iran, Iran’s response, and third-party states’ legal options and obligations under the UN Charter.

New Commentary on GC IV describes Article 23—the treaty’s key provision governing the duty to allow the passage of essentials to civilians—as "significantly diminished" today.

The legal memo justifying its Venezuela operations provides insight into the administration's use-of-force decisions and the factual evidence undergirding them.

Updating a tracker of persistent rhetoric by Russian leaders and their associates -- more than 500 examples -- that may constitute evidence of genocidal intent.

U.S.-led talks float Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia, but such deals would abandon real communities and entrench an unjust, fragile peace.

​The ICRC's updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention fills a loophole-closing function and reasserts international humanitarian law's core protective purpose.

Experts examine the international law issued raised by the U.S. threats and potential strikes against Iran.

Given international courts current role and relevant limitations in ending wars, how can courts play a more meaningful role in ending war, or in preventing a return to war?

The human rights crisis in Iran reveals the limits of a legal system designed to restrain force even when restraint carries profound human costs.

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.

Although international courts have limits, they can do what few other peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms can when it comes to ending war.