State Responsibility

Experts unpack the international law implications of recent incursions of Ukrainian drones into the airspace of Baltic countries due to Russian electronic warfare tactics.

Together, they signal a shift from largely symbolic institution-building to a functional system capable of handling the full scope and scale of Ukraine’s reparations claims.

U.S. policies of funding rebel groups to achieve shared strategic objectives while turning a blind eye to ideology and international law has proven to be myopic time and again

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights' recent advisory opinion addresses the obligations of States and private actors to prevent and combat illicit trafficking of firearms.

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. 

The relationship between international courts and States shapes how they provide accountability, build peace, and respond to backlash.

Litigants from Africa and the African diaspora are doing more than “using” courts during emergencies. They are actively shaping doctrine.

Recent developments are deepening European officials' existing unease about Washington's steadiness as a security partner.

Analysis of Germany's argument before the International Court of Justice in Gaza case.

The only way States can avoid complicity in “arbitrary killings” under international human rights law is to refrain from sharing intelligence that, in part, enables them.

The two determinations are mutually exclusive; it is legally impossible to maintain both simultaneously.

"International law, in its wisdom, makes such options legally available."