Elena Chachko is a doctoral candidate and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, and a Global Order Post-doctoral fellow at Perry World House, University of Pennsylvania. She was previously an international Security Program fellow at the Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School. Prior to her doctoral studies, Elena clerked for Chief Justice Asher D. Grunis on the Supreme Court of Israel. She has also worked at the United Nations Office of Counterterrorism and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where she focused on arms control and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
In the past two decades, the United States has applied a growing number of foreign and security measures directly targeting individuals. A new paper considers this phenomenon and its implications for the administrative state, the presidency and the courts.
These measures reflect broader trends of growing U.S. reliance on targeted sanctions—including going after named individuals—as means for addressing broader foreign and security challenges.
After years of investigations, Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit has announced his decision to consider indicting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with multiple counts of graft.
On Feb. 13, the court handed down its decision on the U.S. preliminary objections in Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. United States).
The Israeli Supreme Court’s decision in Tabish further dilutes the restrictions on the use of force famously established by Public Committee Against Torture v. Israel.
Trump’s announcement is hardly the first time Russia has been accused of significant breaches of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty—but a U.S. withdrawal would have debatable strategic value.
The unanimous order from the International Court of Justice indicates limited provisional measures that fall short of the full relief sought by Iran.