Use of Force

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.

Key excerpts from the Jan. 5 U.N. Security Council meeting on the U.S. operation that captured Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro.

Despite official silence, multiple reports indicate renewed U.S. drone strikes in Yemen targeting AQAP militants, reviving debates on transparency and endless war.

Experts examine legal, political, and security dimensions of U.S. policy on Greenland, including U.S.-NATO relations, congressional oversight, and geopolitical implications.  

Analysis of U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean and the legal consequences of classifying them as arbitrary killings or war crimes under international law.

In Burnley v. United States, relatives sue on behalf of two Trinidadian men killed in a boat strike, confronting U.S. sovereign immunity and the political question doctrine.

In‑depth legal examination of the U.S. capture of the Russian‑flagged tanker Marinera and its implications under the law of naval warfare.

These are questions that the Trump administration has not answered, and journalists and members of Congress could – and should – pose.

Any acquisition of Greenland by the United States–whether by force or through coerced agreement–would directly violate fundamental principles of international law.

This is an Iranian uprising, and it is up to the people of Iran to decide their own future.