UN Charter

"The tensions we have identified are particularly acute when a State faces an existential threat and, as in here, from an enemy long committed to radically unlawful behavior."

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.

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

Positions taken at the UN Security Council are a harbinger of whether the legal cornerstone of the international order that is designed to maintain world peace can hold.

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

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

In his threats against Greenland, President Trump has violated the U.N. Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, and Section 1928f, prompting Congress to take swift action.

Trump’s threats to invade Greenland risk destroying NATO itself, but a little-known statute, 22 U.S.C. 1928f, could prevent him from doing just that.

Would NATO have to defend Denmark if the United States attempted to seize Greenland? Article 5 suggests other allies are obligated to come to Denmark's defense if requested.

Did the president have the authority under U.S. law to undertake Operation Absolute Resolve without congressional authorization? Leading experts say he did not.

A decades-old Office of Legal Counsel memorandum claiming the President can disregard the UN Charter does not withstand serious scrutiny.