Suspending consideration of the strategic questions that would factor into the decision, how would the U.S. justify a pre-attack strike on North Korea under international law? And how would the rest of the world react?
Latest in International Law
A preview of Ashley Deeks's forthcoming paper on secret international agreements and the U.N. Charter.
In the wake of a recent failure to reach international consensus on the application of international law to cyber activities, the United States should seek to shape norms unilaterally by continuing to assertively investigate and indict individuals—including state actors—who engage in cyber activities that the U.S. Government ultimately would like to see the international community characterize as wrongful.
It's possible that to justify the bombing the U.S. relied on its controversial position that parties to armed conflict have the legal authority under international humanitarian law (IHL) to target objects that contribute to an opposing belligerent’s economy.
Contrary to received wisdom about congressional skepticism regarding international law, recent events reveal that Congress is stepping up to embrace it.
Instead of myopically pursuing an unlikely treaty ban, the international community should explore alternative approaches to addressing the regulatory challenges posed by autonomous weapon systems.
Under what conditions may a state lawfully intervene—or otherwise act—in relation to armed conflict in Syria?
A review of Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Paradigms of International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2016).
Those proposing an erosion of the U.N. Charter system in response to the Syrian airstrikes need to consider carefully whether the international legal system is strong enough to make nuanced use-of-force distinctions.