US Policy
Marko Milanovic examines the legality of foreign policy-related comments made by United States President Donald Trump in light of international law, foreshadowing the new administration’s agenda. These include annexing Greenland or seizing the Panama Canal. Milanovic focuses on the prohibition of intervention, a rule of international law that forbids coercion in a state’s internal or external affairs, noting the concept of “coercion-as-extortion.” The author finds that coercive measures—regardless of their success—are unlawful if they interfere with another state’s sovereignty. Read the full post here.
Philippa Webb and Daisy Peterson critically examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States, which granted former President Donald Trump absolute immunity for official acts committed within his constitutional powers, even if unlawful under domestic law. While the Court’s decision emphasized protecting presidential authority under the separation of powers, it has sparked intense debate over its implications for accountability, both domestically and internationally. The article contrasts the Supreme Court’s tripartite immunity framework—distinguishing core, presumptively immune, and non-immune acts—with international law’s clearer division between official and private conduct, as well as its growing emphasis on limiting immunity for serious crimes. Highlighting cases like Pinochet (No. 3) and the ICJ’s stance on international crimes, the authors argue that acts violating peremptory norms of international law cannot constitute official state functions. The decision raises concerns about its potential to shield rogue leaders from accountability, undermine U.S. foreign policy credibility, and inspire similar approaches by other states, potentially eroding international norms of responsibility and justice. Read the full post here.
Ekaterina Antsygina addresses U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks questioning Denmark’s legal rights to Greenland. The author provides an analysis of the legal foundations of Denmark’s sovereignty and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination, observing they are firmly rooted in international law. Antsygina presents historical legal developments, Denmark’s continuous authority, and its recognition by other states, including the U.S., in support of Denmark’s authority over the island. However, the author notes that if Greenland chooses to pursue independence in the future it would face complex issues, including military establishment, Arctic responsibilities, and territorial claims. Read the full post here.
Climate Change
Jannika Jahn and Marlene Letsch examine the potential role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in addressing climate change through its advisory opinion on states’ international obligations. The ICJ faces a critical balance between maintaining the cooperative legal frameworks established under treaties like the Paris Agreement and addressing the disruptive challenges posed by climate change. Vulnerable states advocate for holding major emitters accountable under principles of customary international law, while developed countries caution against disrupting established treaty regimes. The ICJ could promote progress by interpreting laws to enforce due diligence, good faith obligations, and human rights, fostering decarbonization and reshaping economic structures. However, recognizing obligations for historical emissions risks disrupting existing international legal structures, leaving the ICJ to navigate between stability and necessary disruption for climate justice. Read the full post here.
Luciano Pezzano assesses the erga omnes nature of human rights obligations in the context of climate change, as debated during the ICJ advisory proceedings on the “Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change.” Pezzano highlights differing positions on whether human rights obligations, including those not derived from jus cogens norms, are erga omnes or erga omnes partes, and explores the consequences of breaches of such obligations, including state responsibility and international cooperation. The piece underscores the opportunity for the ICJ to clarify these legal issues, given the broad international support for recognizing human rights obligations as central to addressing climate change. Read the full post here.
ICC
Kerttuli Lingenfelter explores the ICC Prosecutor’s Slavery Crimes Policy and Practice adopted in December 2024. Aiming to expand international jurisprudence on slavery crimes, the policy outlines the Prosecutor’s role in addressing slavery through criminal accountability within the Court’s jurisdiction. Lingenfelter emphasizes the importance of recognizing contemporary forms of slavery and adapting legal frameworks to effectively prosecute such crimes. The policy also highlights the need for cooperation with national jurisdictions and other stakeholders to strengthen efforts against slavery globally. Read the full post here.
Conflict
Samit D’Cunha, Tristan Ferraro and Tilman Rodenhäuser consider how ambiguous terms like “hybrid threats,” “proxy warfare,” and “grey zones” are often used to describe activities such as cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, and covert power projection in the current geopolitical climate. The post emphasizes that international humanitarian law (IHL) provides clear criteria to determine whether such activities amount to armed conflict, distinguishing between international and non-international conflicts based on facts rather than political narratives. The authors caution against misusing war-related terminology for political purposes, highlighting the need for objective legal assessments to avoid escalating tensions and mischaracterizing situations. Read the full post here.
More posts
Dominic Bielby considers the case of Kerajaan Malaysia v. Lawyers for Liberty revolves around the Malaysian government’s challenge to Singapore’s POFMA, which seeks to regulate online misinformation. The Malaysian-based NGO, Lawyers for Liberty, is accused of spreading falsehoods about Singapore’s handling of COVID-19, and the case questions whether Singapore can apply its laws outside its borders. The court is examining issues of state sovereignty, jurisdiction, and the balance between freedom of expression and combating online falsehoods. Read the full post here.
Toni Selkälä and Shorena Nikoleishvili provide an analysis of Georgia’s ongoing constitutional crisis, culminating in the emergence of a “two-president problem” following Mikheil Kavelashvili’s inauguration on December 29, 2024, and Salome Zourabichvili’s refusal to recognize his legitimacy. The authors explore how international law traditionally distinguishes between political and legal recognition of governments, with examples like Venezuela illustrating how non-recognition can carry limited practical effects domestically but significant consequences internationally. Ultimately, the authors stress how foreign governments’ recognition of either Zourabichvili or Kavelashvili will determine the effectiveness of Georgia’s international standing and its capacity to navigate this constitutional impasse. Read the full post here.
Jean-Baptiste Dudant and Géraldine Giraudeau explore the legal and ethical challenges facing sinking island states, such as Tuvalu, as they fight to preserve statehood amid rising sea levels. The authors highlight the reliance on principles like state continuity, territorial integrity, and self-determination while noting the limits of existing international law, which often lags behind these unprecedented scenarios. Efforts like the Tuvalu-Australia treaty set a precedent for recognizing statehood without land territory but raise concerns about sovereignty over maritime zones, effective governance, and power imbalances between vulnerable states and powerful allies. The post underscores the need for multilateral legal innovation to ensure equitable solutions that address the existential threats to atoll states while preventing powerful polluters from sidestepping meaningful climate action. Read the full post here.
