A Q&A about the international partnership-turned-rivalry that has shaped South Asia for decades.
Latest in Omphalos
The President's responsibility to explain the legal basis for military actions such as the Syria missile strikes, and the process used to formulate that legal basis, is dangerously undefined.
With six hours to spare before the 48-hour deadline in section 4 of the War Powers Resolution, the White House has sent the President's report to Congress on Thursday evening's missile attacks on Syria.
The text is here:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Is the Administration publicly acknowledging that the law has its limits and that other factors outweighed the constraints of international law in this instance?
For the Chinese government, no principle of international law is more sacrosanct than non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states. So why hasn't it yet condemned the U.S. missile strike on Syria?
Trump's airstrikes in Syria represent unilateral presidential war initiation, and the Founders would have unanimously held that the action was unconstitutional.
The origins and implications of the legal basis for the Syria strike.
What legal authority for the use of force will President Trump assert for the missile attack against Syrian forces under domestic and international law?
For years, Syria’s pro-democracy and human rights activists warned the Obama administration about the impact of its repeated statements that it would not intervene in the Syrian conflict come hell or high water. Now it’s the Trump administration’s turn.
Threatening to unilaterally slash all U.S. funding to a bulwark of the postwar liberal order is a terrible idea. So why are Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham proposing it?