Russia-Ukraine War

The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine is a step toward closing a longstanding gap in international criminal accountability.

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. 

An analysis of the ICC’s warrants against Putin and Lvova-Belova, exploring their real impact on diplomacy, deterrence, and justice in Ukraine.

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

When is it justified for the EU to rely on emergency measures to protect Ukraine and counter Russia?

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

Trump’s foreign policy remains an inconsistent array of initiatives and adventures: bold in Latin America, bad in Greenland, yet often constructive on Ukrainian security.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that the West promised not to expand NATO is a myth—denied by Gorbachev, ignored by Yeltsin, and invented years into Putin’s rule.

An amnesty in any future peace plan would be unlawful and a moral abdication of the pursuit of accountability for victims in Russia's war in Ukraine.

Compromising on prosecutions for Russian atrocities would erode the system of international justice built since Nuremberg and undermine the rule of law itself.

The plan is a mess, but Ukrainians are right to try to work with the draft rather than reject it out of hand.

After abandoning nuclear arms for the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine faces existential war -- proof that security “assurances” alone won't be enough now.