Latest in International Law
United Nations norms related to nation-state cyberspace operations clearly apply during peacetime, but recent events in Ukraine and Russia raise challenges regarding those norms’ applicability in armed conflict.
Facebook’s Oversight Board presents itself as an executor of the global public interest embedded in international law. But in reality, the board uses international law in an imaginative and incoherent fashion, often widely reinterpreting its principles and instruments.
A proposed amendment in the Russian parliament would require foreign warships to obtain diplomatic clearance before navigating through the internal waters of the Northern Sea Route. It is plainly illegal—Moscow’s own past actions tell us so.
The long-awaited decision paves the way for the court to hear The Gambia's case alleging that Myanmar's actions against the Rohingya in 2017 violate the Genocide Convention.
The judgment marks a regressive trend in which HCJ justices uncritically apply old rulings on international law doctrines to belligerent occupation situations.
Now is the time for a narrower, more focused international legal order dedicated to a strong core of sovereignty-protecting norms that preserve the territorial status quo and promote international peace and cooperation.
The legal principle of universal jurisdiction is increasingly being used to bring accountability for atrocity crimes across the world. An overview of recent developments sheds light on certain patterns that may have begun to emerge.
A recent State Department legal analysis highlights the unique roles that the United States plays in interpreting and enforcing maritime law in the South China Sea. This legal diplomacy also illustrates methodological challenges of customary international law.
The Chinese government’s use of its own weak legal system to carry out “hostage diplomacy" may herald a new “asymmetric lawfare” strategy to counter the U.S.
Among the most discussed provisions of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 is Rule 4: “Violation of sovereignty.” Rule 4 provides: “A State must not conduct cyber operations that violate the sovereignty of another State.” Considered alone, Rule 4 is banal and unobjectionable, since there are many established sovereignty-based international-law rules that cyber operations might violate.