Latest in International Law
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.
The Biden administration has already promised to act on one of the treaty's key provisions.
Cyberattack is an ill-defined area of international law, leaving questions as to when such an attack reaches the threshold for an act of war.
The US policy of “defend forward” and “persistent engagement” in cyberspace raises the stakes of this attribution question as a matter of both international and domestic law.
The possibility of Cuba’s and China’s employment of directed, pulsed radio frequency energy weapons against U.S. personnel could potentially constitute a violation of their treaty obligations.