Russia-Ukraine War

Legal analysis shows how Russia’s actions meet the threshold for the crime of persecution under international law.

The recently announced mineral deal is likely a lawful “sole executive agreement” that the president need not submit to Congress, but subsequent implementing agreements are…

Extermination is often overshadowed by or conflated with genocide, it is no less egregious in its scope and effects. Prosecuting the crime of extermination is essential.

Negotiations to achieve some kind of end to Russia’s war on Ukraine have reached an intensive phase. Moments of truth lie immediately ahead.

The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine cannot be treated as a bargaining chip in negotiations to end hostilities.

Stepping away from NATO would reduce U.S. leverage over European allies, potentially leading to more nuclear-armed states.

Coercion leveraged by the U.S. to secure Ukrainian mineral resources could be deemed use of force, rendering any resulting treaty void.

The web of factors for the diamond industry in any lifting of sanctions could be instructive for other sectors too.

Russia is a financially, morally, and politically risky place to do business — and American companies should think twice before doing so.

With major powers increasingly skeptical of international institutions, strengthening the Court's legal coherence is necessary for preserving its legitimacy

Shifts in intelligence sharing practice with Russia would reliably signal that the United States is instituting a deep strategic realignment.

International courts must respect international law, also in dire times. The International Criminal Court’s denial of immunity to heads of third States does not.