Five ways Obama's Supreme Court nominee could change U.S. foreign policy.
A paper examining the International Criminal Court (ICC) and assessing how the next president of the United States could more constructively engage with the ICC in accordance with the Rome Statute.
The Suffolk Transnational Law Review examines the Medellin decision and its implications for the United States and the rule of law in international affairs.
This conference report addresses how to devise useful and pragmatic strategies on what steps the United States can do to help implement a judicial doctrine on war crimes called Responsibility to Protect, or R2P.
The United States needs the ICC to help restore its global credibility, discipline its own decision-making, and strengthen judicial intervention against atrocity crimes.
Trial Watch maintains this updated backgrounder and current developments account of the trial of Liberia's alleged genocidal former president Charles Taylor.
See more in Courts and Tribunals
Abraham D. Sofaer, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, discuss the merits of capital punishment in trying dictators and other war criminals in this CFR Online Debate.
African leaders are the targets because ambitious jurists consider them to be ‘low-hanging fruit.
John B. Bellinger III argues that Congress should reconsider the International Criminal Court.
John B. Bellinger III argues that Libyans should be allowed to choose whether they want to try members of the Qaddafi regime in their own courts.
James M. Lindsay argues that an indictment of Moammar Gadhafi by the International Criminal Court could actually make it harder to bring Libya's civil war to a quick end.
John B. Bellinger III says that President Obama and the 112th Congress should comply with the Vienna Convention, to help ensure that Americans arrested abroad are given access to State Department officials.
John B. Bellinger III discusses the anniversary of the Geneva Conventions and argues that the United States should use its political capital to clarify the Conventions and make them applicable to modern warfare.
Amity Shlaes argues that the 1942 Supreme Court ruling Wickard v. Filburn, which the Obama administration cites as evidence of the constitutionality of penalties in the new health-care law, is flawed.
John B. Bellinger III discusses why the United States is unlikely to join the International Criminal Court anytime soon.
John Bellinger argues that complying with the Vienna convention, "protects Americans abroad and confirms this country's commitment to international law."
Michael J. Gerson argues that Republican opposition to President Obama's appointment of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court would be "politically risky and ultimately futile."
Paul B. Stares and Alexander Noyes argue that "A conditional suspension of the ICC's warrant for Bashir is the best way to prevent a collapse of the CPA, protect those still in need, and force Khartoum to act toward ending the conflict in Darfur."