Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)

An assessment of the United Kingdom's ability to maintain a legal line between defensive versus offensive operations against Iran.

After Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei was killed in a U.S. and Israeli attack, a key question arises: when is striking a member of the enemy leadership lawful under the laws…

What Congress, journalists, and the public should ask the Trump administration about its war in Iran.

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.

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

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?

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.

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. 

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

A troubling OLC memo claims civilians aiding “war-sustaining activities” can be lawfully targeted—an unsupported interpretation that weakens civilian safeguards.