If you’re hot, bothered and feeling sweaty all the time… it’s not just you.

If you’ve been keeping up with the news: This summer has witnessed some of the most extreme weather events in recorded history.

According to scientists, there is strong evidence that climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

So, what exactly does international law say countries have to do about this?

Share

Well, back in 2015, 195 countries adopted the Paris Agreement.

It aims to keep global temperatures from rising further and, hopefully, to reduce extreme weather.

More specifically, the goal is to keep the world from getting more than 2°C hotter than before the industrial era, and ideally limit it to 1.5°C.

So under the agreement, every country sets its own personalised plan for fighting climate change and commits to sticking to it.

These plans are known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Subscribe now

Countries have to submit their NDCs every five years — first in 2015, then by 2020, 2025, 2030, and so on — but not everyone hits these dates on time, so submissions trickle in rather than landing all at once.

Then, every 5 years, all 195 of them are reviewed together to see if, added up, they’re keeping the world on track with the Paris Agreement’s goals:

This review process is called the Global Stocktake.

(Throwing in some SAIL Art! 😄)

Global Stocktakes are scheduled between NDC cycles (2023, 2028, and so on).

They’re designed to push the next round of NDCs towards greater ambition.

Share

In 2023, the first Global Stocktake report indicated that countries were not on track.

It said global warming was at around 1.1°C – pretty close to the 1.5°C limit.

(And the increasingly extreme weather proves it!)

Plus, in early 2025, almost all countries were late to even submit their updated NDCs on time…!

But on 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (the world’s highest court) clarified in an opinion that countries can’t put whatever they want in an NDC and throw together random promises.

They have to do their homework, use real science, set fair goals, listen to people, and make sure their plan really helps fight climate change.

They also have to be mindful that all NDCs, when taken together, must help keep global warming below 1.5°C.

The court also clarified that countries can be held responsible for not respecting their climate obligations, and even pay reparations for this.

Subscribe now

So what now?

Climate litigation has been on the rise over the past decade.

Across the world, governments and corporations are being taken to court for climate change-related offenses.

And the ICJ opinion just handed everyone a stronger legal basis to do more of it.

We can also expect to see much more of it as temperatures increase.

Stay tuned. And stay cool.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• I Read 133 Pages of the ICJ Climate Change Opinion So You Don’t Have To. Here Are Its 10 Commandments for Countries (in 2 minutes)

• How to Explain the COP30 Outcomes in 2 minutes

• How to Make Sense of COP30 in Brazil (in 2 minutes)

Author: justflix (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.)

Venezuela announced it’s leaving the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The same month the ICC prosecutor was removed… and the U.S. declared war on the court.

Quite the month in The Hague!

Subscribe now

1. What was the ICC investigating?

The ICC has been investigating the Maduro government for crimes against humanity (the arbitrary detention, torture, and persecution of political opponents and protesters).

You’ll know Maduro was captured by the U.S. on 3 January 2026 and is currently on trial in New York. That move was illegal under international law (as I covered here and here).

For those who asked me “But what was the alternative?” at the time: this is the answer.

The ICC investigation was already underway.

It is the legal path to accountability for what the Maduro government did.

2. Why did Venezuela pull out?

The government’s argument: the ICC unfairly targets countries in Africa and Latin America.

But there might be another reason.

The U.S. welcomed Venezuela’s withdrawal and praised the “new Venezuelan government’s partnership on American-led efforts to dismantle the ICC”.

So the new Venezuela government, backed by the U.S., is now apparently helping Washington dismantle the ICC.

Share

3. Can a country just leave the ICC whenever it wants?

Yes.

(Article 127 of the Rome Statute).

Withdrawal isn’t immediate; it takes effect one year after the UN received official notification.

So Venezuela will be officially out in July 2027.

4. Does withdrawing from the ICC make the investigation go away?

No.

Even after you leave, the ICC can continue investigating and prosecuting crimes it started looking into, that occurred while you were a member.

Venezuela joined the ICC in 2000. The court has been investigating crimes allegedly committed since 2014. Leaving now doesn’t erase those years.

The ICC just can’t touch anything that happens after Venezuela’s withdrawal takes effect in July 2027.

But the investigation might be harder without Venezuela being obligated to cooperate after July 2027 (e.g., arrest suspects, hand over evidence, etc.).

Subscribe now

5. Who else has left the ICC and what happened?

Burundi was the first to leave the ICC in 2017, after the ICC started assessing whether to open a formal investigation there in 2016.

The ICC opened the investigation anyway, two days before Burundi’s withdrawal took effect.

It has been ongoing for ~9 years with no individual indicted/arrested and no cooperation from Burundi.

Still, it shows withdrawal doesn’t legally end an investigation.

The Philippines left in 2019, after the ICC started assessing whether to open an investigation in 2018 (see the pattern?).

But the ICC investigation continued, a warrant was issued for former President Duterte in March 2025, he was arrested and his trial opens in November 2026.

Withdrawal did not save him.

So Venezuela’s new government should take note:

Withdrawal buys you nothing and the investigation continues either way.

6. What does this mean alongside Khan’s removal; is the ICC falling apart?

The ICC has survived U.S. hostility before, but never the combination of

(1) the U.S. launching a campaign to actively dismantle it;

(2) judges being sanctioned;

(3) states pulling out;

(4) the prosecutor (Khan) being removed.

Whether it survives this depends on whether the remaining members hold firm.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• The ICC Prosecutor Was Just Fired. Here’s What It Means (in 2 minutes)

• A 3-Minute Update on the International Criminal Court’s Chaos Era

• How the International Criminal Court Ended Up in Its Chaos Era (Explained in 2 minutes)

• The US Capture of Venezuela’s Maduro: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• Venezuela II: Answering Your Top International Law Questions After the Maduro Capture (in 3 minutes)

Share

Photo credit: Raoul Somers (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Share

The ICC is the court in The Hague that goes after criminals (not the other one in The Hague, the ICJ, that deals with disputes between countries).

The ICC’s prosecutor is the one who opens an investigation, gathering evidence and making a case that the matter should go to trial.

They’re the catalyst for the investigations in Myanmar, Venezuela, Palestine, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc… and for arrest warrants on the likes of Netanyahu and Putin.

Karim Khan has held that role since 2021, but just got fired.

It’s the first time in the ICC’s 24-year history that a sitting chief prosecutor has been voted out of office.

Subscribe now

1. Why was Karim Khan fired?

The vote focused on allegations of a sexual relationship between Khan and a member of his office staff.

Khan has consistently denied any wrongdoing. His supporters insist it is a politicised case in reaction to his pursuit of arrest warrants against Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

This is the core controversy of this saga.

To be clear: misconduct allegations are serious and must be taken seriously. But the timing, the geopolitical context, and Khan’s own insistence that this is retaliation will hang over this removal permanently. The court cannot fully escape that shadow.

2. Who fired him?

82 out of 125 ICC Member States voted to remove Khan: well above the 63 needed.

Under Article 46 of the Rome Statute, a prosecutor can be removed for serious misconduct or a serious breach of their duties, with an absolute majority of ICC Member States.

Share

3. What was the process for removing him like?

Long (almost two years)... and messy.

The Rome Statute sets out the grounds for removal, but gives almost no guidance on how the process should actually work in practice… probably because no one anticipated it would ever be needed.

So when it was, everyone kind of improvised: there were disagreements about how much proof was enough to justify removing him, the voting procedure, and who had authority to do what. More detail on the procedural issues in my last post. The whole thing looked like it was being stitched together as it went along.

Khan’s team argued that the process was fundamentally unfair.

So that doesn’t help the ICC’s optics either.

4. Who will be the next prosecutor?

We don’t know yet.

But after this incident, whoever takes this role must be prepared for immense pressure.

Pressure to be of high moral character, obviously (as Rome Statute Article 42 requires).

Pressure from the U.S., who declared war on the ICC only days ago.

And — if you believe the removal was a response to the Netanyahu warrant — pressure to decide whether to actively pursue it… or let it die.

Subscribe now

5. Can Netanyahu’s arrest warrant be dropped by the next prosecutor?

No.

In this case, the warrants were already reviewed and approved by the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber: the small panel of judges whose job is to oversee a case before it goes to trial.

So the warrants stay, unless those judges decide to drop it (Article 58(4) of the Rome Statute).

(The U.S. is pressuring them to through sanctions, but so far they’re holding firm.)

Still, a new prosecutor could still slow down the process significantly… to an almost-halt.

At this stage, before Netanyahu is arrested or appears in court, the prosecutor is still investigating, still pushing states to cooperate, and still maintaining diplomatic pressure on countries to arrest him if he enters their territory.

A new prosecutor who stops doing those things (e.g.: stops investigating, doesn’t add any new charges, sends fewer cooperation requests, etc.) can effectively let the case go cold without ever formally dropping it.

6. How will the next prosecutor be selected?

The same body of 125 states who just voted to remove Khan will elect his replacement, by secret ballot.

Expect the process to take months, be closely watched and fiercely contested.

The outcome might tell us a lot about the direction the ICC intends to take.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• A 3-Minute Update on the International Criminal Court’s Chaos Era

• How the International Criminal Court Ended Up in Its Chaos Era (Explained in 2 minutes)

• The U.S. Goes to Court To Defend Israel Against Genocide Charges (in 2 minutes)

Share

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been repeatedly saying he will order the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to New York.

Netanyahu travels to New York every September to address the United Nations General Assembly (check out his 2025 intervention here, where many diplomats left the room in protest).

Yet, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for him in 2024.

The ICC is a permanent international tribunal based in The Hague, created by the Rome Statute, a treaty with 125 state parties (i.e., countries that have agreed to be bound by its terms).

It prosecutes individuals accused of the gravest international crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

An arrest warrant from the ICC means that any state party to the Rome Statute is legally obligated to detain and transfer the named individual to The Hague if that person enters its territory (see Rome Statute, Article 89(1)).

But could Mayor Mamdani actually have him arrested?

… Honestly, probably not.

The U.S. is not a state party to the Rome Statute (Bill Clinton signed it on 31 Dec 2000 to show the U.S. wanted to join, but the country never completed the official approval process to make it legally binding).

U.S. officials aren’t legally required to enforce ICC arrest warrants; cooperation would be a political choice, not a legal duty.

But even if Mayor Mamdani wanted to arrest Netanyahu, U.S. federal authorities would probably step in to prevent it.

They’d say (and I’m no expert in U.S. law) that foreign relations and international law are federal responsibilities (see e.g., U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 and Article II Sections 2 & 3).

So, any ICC-related arrest would need federal law enforcement and government approval, not a city or state official.

Mamdani knows this. He said “it is clear we do not have the legal authority to execute this warrant”, and is urging the federal government to act.

In other words, he’ll need to convince Trump.

The thing is, the Trump administration literally launched a campaign to dismantle the ICC just the other day, calling it a threat to U.S. sovereignty.

The U.S. also adopted the Hague Invasion Act back in 2001: a law saying the U.S. will invade The Hague if Americans, or those working on behalf of Israel, are arrested, detained, prosecuted or jailed by or on behalf of the ICC (see section 15(3)).

So let’s just say… it will be a serious uphill battle for Mamdani to convince the federal government to arrest Netanyahu.

So what now?

ICC arrest warrants don’t expire. It follows the person everywhere, forever.

Netanyahu cannot travel to any of the 125 Rome Statute countries without risking arrest, and several have already confirmed they would act.

And we could definitely use more world leaders with Mayor Mamdani’s courage and commitment to uphold international law!

Share

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• How the International Criminal Court Ended Up in Its Chaos Era (Explained in 2 minutes)

• A 3-Minute Update on the International Criminal Court’s Chaos Era

• Who Will Rebuild Gaza? (In 3 minutes)

• The U.S. Goes to Court To Defend Israel Against Genocide Charges (in 2 minutes)

Subscribe now

The EU just launched a $1 billion fund for Gaza’s reconstruction.

Generous, right?

But there’s a word missing that lawyers are thinking about: reparations!

Share

A donation is an act of goodwill. Someone chooses to give, and the recipient owes gratitude in return.

Reparation is a legal remedy. Someone breached the law, and now owes a debt to repair their wrong. No gratitude required, because it was never a gift.

The outcome is the same (a rebuilt Gaza), but the rationale is different… and that matters.

That difference is why, in March 2026, a group of UN human rights experts explicitly called out the Board of Peace (remember them?!), arguing that any legitimate reconstruction process has to be “reparative” and rights-based.

Still, both reparations and donations towards rebuilding Gaza have been slow and with challenges.

Subscribe now

1. Why reparations aren’t on the table… yet

A few reasons.

First, Israel denies wrongdoing.

It’s been accused of breaking the laws of war, including targeting civilians and civilian buildings on purpose, and hitting targets way out of proportion to any military value they had.

Israel says none of that is true.

Its position is that it acted in lawful self-defence, that it didn’t deliberately target civilians, and that its response was proportionate.

If a court ever ruled that Israel broke the laws of war, and specifically that flattening Gaza’s civilian infrastructure crossed that line, Israel could then be legally required to pay full reparations.

That wouldn’t just mean money. It could mean actually being made to rebuild what it destroyed.

But no court has made that judgment (at least, not yet…).

Share

Second, it’s difficult to hold other states accountable.

Under the law, a state that aids or assists another state’s internationally wrongful act can be held responsible too, but only if it did so knowing its assistance would be used for that wrongful act.

Nicaragua tried exactly this argument against Germany before the International Court of Justice over Germany’s arms exports to Israel.

The Court’s judgment on this is years away, and only targets Germany.

But it would be the first time a third state is held accountable for complicity, and could maybe even be asked to pay reparations for it as a result… which is a big deal.

Third, the courts that could rule on this take years to decide, and even when they do, they can’t force a state to comply.

Subscribe now

Aside from Nicaragua suing Germany, there have been three recent cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ - resolving disputes between countries) touching on Gaza.

One from July 2024 declared Israel’s occupation of Palestine (including Gaza) was illegal, and mentioned reparations were owed. But it’s a non-binding opinion that Israel has ignored.

Another from October 2025 was on Israel’s obligations toward the UN and humanitarian actors operating there. It was also a non-binding opinion, and didn’t touch on reparations.

The third is South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. Contrary to the first two, this one’s a binding judgment. Plus, if Israel were found have committed genocide, reparations could follow. But we’ll have to wait another few years before we know what the ICJ decides!

Beyond the ICJ, the International Criminal Court (another court in The Hague going after individual criminals; not countries) has issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, but reparations only become possible after a conviction, which would be many, many years off (if at all), not least given the ICC’s many other ongoing crises.

Share

2. Gaza might get humanitarian donations… eventually

Even donations have been challenging.

Even though Qatar said it wouldn’t “write the check” for Gaza’s reconstruction (as it has done so in the past) in December 2025, it later changed its tune and pledged $1 billion.

Others like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait, pledged similar amounts at the Board of Peace’s inaugural meeting in February 2026.

The EU just opened its wallet, and the US said its goal was to redevelop Gaza.

But there are some problems:

First, the UN and World Bank put Gaza’s actual reconstruction cost at roughly $71.4 billion over a decade, so the pledges made so far aren’t anywhere near enough.

Second, according to some media reports, the World Bank-administered Gaza fund has received zero dollars from anyone as of mid-2026.

Third, Israel has not made a financial pledge to the Board of Peace’s Gaza reconstruction fund.

The takeaway: Things need to move much, much faster, and political pressure is needed to hold relevant countries to account. What do you think? Comment below.

Leave a comment

Share

If you enjoyed this SAIL post, you might also enjoy:

• 5 Legal Problems With Trump’s Board of Peace (in 2 minutes)

• The U.S. Goes to Court To Defend Israel Against Genocide Charges (in 2 minutes)

• Israel Stopping the Global Sumud Flotilla: An International Law Breakdown (in 4 minutes)

• Israel’s Occupation of Southern Lebanon: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

In December 2025 I caught you up on the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s trials, tribulations, and triumphs. It’s time for an update.

1. The ICC Prosecutor (Karim Khan) is still caught up in a scandal

It’s been hard keeping up with this messy story. I’ve got you.

May 2024: A member of Khan’s office accused him of sexual misconduct. An internal ICC investigation was opened and closed within a week, because the victim refused to cooperate with it.

November 2024: The head of the 125-member Assembly of States Parties launched a UN investigation instead. Both the victim and Khan cooperated.

Subscribe now

December 2025: UN investigators submitted a confidential 150-page report with 5000 (!) pages of evidence to a panel of three independent judges. They cleared Khan; to them, the evidence didn’t prove he carried out sexual misconduct.

March 2026: The judges cleared him.

June 2026: The Bureau (a diplomatic/political body and the ICC’s executive/oversight committee made up of a President, 2 Vice Presidents and 18 rotating ICC member states) rejected the judges’ decision.

Plus, 14 out of 21 voted to temporarily suspend Khan.

To them, he is guilty of sexual misconduct.

July 2026: A special session of the Assembly of States Parties is scheduled for 24 July 2026 in New York to vote on his fate. (Stay tuned for a SAIL post then!)

Share

The issue is controversial for at least three reasons:

First, should the view of politically appointed diplomats overrule the view of a panel of independent judges?

Second, the Bureau changed how the vote works.

Originally, there were supposed to be two separate votes: first on whether Khan did something wrong (and how serious it was), then (only if needed!) a second vote on whether to actually remove him.

Instead, states voted once, deciding both questions together.

Splitting the vote lets states judge the facts without the pressure of also deciding his fate.

Combining them blurs that line, and doing it right after the judges cleared him makes it look like the rules were changed to get a different result.

Third, all of this is happening while the US is punishing the ICC with sanctions, because the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

Khan’s supporters say this is why he’s under attack: not because of what he’s accused of, but because he pushed forward with those warrants.

The bigger picture is that this scandal could harm trust in the ICC (“if its own prosecutor is under investigation, how solid is its moral authority?”).

Subscribe now

2. ICC judges are fighting back against U.S. sanctions

Trump slapped sanctions (here and here) on 9 ICC staff members, because the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

Sanctions mean those ICC staff members can’t access money in a bank account, use credit cards, use Amazon/Google, and more.

The update is those judges have filed a lawsuit before US courts, arguing the decision is unlawful. If they win, sanctions could possibly be unfrozen. Let’s see what happens.

3. A bunch of countries have pulled out of the ICC

Last year Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announced they’re leaving the ICC.

Now, they’ve actually gone ahead and pulled the trigger.

It’ll take one year from now to enter into effect, so they’re still parties until June 2027.

The ICC should take advantage to progress as much as possible in the ongoing Mali investigation between now and then.

After June 2027, the Mali investigation can still continue, but will be harder without Mali being obligated to cooperate (e.g., arrest suspects, hand over evidence, etc.)

Better news: Hungary was on track to leave the ICC… until a new government came to power and reversed the decision.

The new leader has even said Hungary will arrest Netanyahu if he ever sets foot there. Quite the reversal, given Hungary used to be one of his biggest allies.

… I’ll end this post on that positive note!

The topic of this post was requested by SAIL subscriber Aditya Roy (@4128). If you have a topic making news headlines you'd like covered, drop a comment or contact hello@learnsail.org.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• How the International Criminal Court Ended Up in Its Chaos Era (Explained in 2 minutes)

• The U.S. Goes to Court To Defend Israel Against Genocide Charges (in 2 minutes)

• Can Your Boss Stop You From Striking? International Law Just Said No.

Share

If you thought COVID-19 was bad, buckle up. Ebola doesn’t spread like COVID, but makes it look like a mild flu season.

Subscribe now

Ebola’s been around since 1976, but these days it’s moving faster than ever: the 2026 outbreak is the largest ever recorded in its first month, and the head of Africa’s Centres for Disease ​Control and Prevention has warned it could be the worst Ebola outbreak on record.

The first case on European soil was also just confirmed in France.

Global health law tells countries what they should be doing when there’s an outbreak to keep everyone as safe as possible.

There’s some good news about how it’s developed lately, and some bad news.

Share

Good news:

1. Countries are faster to report outbreaks

States have always had to report disease outbreaks to the World Health Organization (WHO).

The International Health Regulations (IHR), a binding treaty, required them to (Article 6). But report what, exactly, and when?

This wasn’t clear, and resulted in slower reporting until the IHR was recently amended.

Now, the legal trigger for reporting now explicitly covers unexplained clusters of severe respiratory illness, and even a handful of cases can qualify, before any lab has confirmed what’s actually causing them.

The bar for “this counts, tell us now” got lower.

Because of this, WHO got its first alert about this Ebola outbreak on 5 May 2026, based on an unusual cluster of deaths, before lab confirmation even existed. That’s much faster.

Subscribe now

2. The WHO is faster to declare a public health emergency

The WHO has a practice of declaring an outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) when it gets to a critical stage needing serious collaboration between countries.

When Ebola broke out in December 2013, a PHEIC wasn’t declared until August 2014 (roughly 8 months later).

When it broke out again in 2018, a PHEIC wasn’t declared until July 2019 (roughly 11 months later).

This time (2026): the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) officially declared the outbreak (once lab tests came in) on 15 May.

The WHO declared a PHEIC two days later, on 17 May.

That’s a totally different category of speed.

Bad news:

3. No enforcement

Surprise! If a state hides an outbreak, is unresponsive or uncooperative (breaching Article 6), there’s no penalty.

So for instance, contact tracing in this Ebola outbreak has reached ~45% of contacts, against WHO’s own 90% benchmark. But there’s no legal consequence.

The system is designed to be “non-punitive” and “non-adversarial”, by its own legal text (Article 54bis). It’s built to encourage, not enforce.

Share

4. Equity’s still a problem

Equity means: resources and access to health aren’t split equally, but go where the need is greatest.

It’s become even more important after we witnessed vaccine hoarding by Western countries during COVID-19 (remember that? Good times :D).

The IHR amendments added “equity and solidarity” as a formal principle (Article 3) and a new financing mechanism meant to get vaccines and supplies to poorer countries during emergencies, though it hasn’t been tested yet.

Meanwhile, equity’s still a big problem.

When this Ebola outbreak hit DRC, the US wouldn’t bring its own exposed citizens home. Instead it tried to build a quarantine facility in Kenya… a country with zero Ebola cases.

The message Kenyans heard: ‘too dangerous for us, fine for you.’ That’s the equity gap the new treaty language is supposed to close, playing out in real time. Kenyan courts and ministers blocked this move.

Changing the law was the easy part. Changing how seriously states take equity will be the harder fight.

Conclusion: The law can spot an outbreak fast now. But it’s still not fair: it can’t make anyone pay for it or stop a rich country offloading risk onto a poor one. And until it is, every outbreak will keep exposing the same gap.

Leave a comment

The topic of this post was requested by SAIL subscriber Naa (@naa1720920). If you have a topic making news headlines you’d like covered, drop a comment or contact hello@learnsail.org.

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• Can International Law Stop Hantavirus? (In 3 minutes)

• The U.S. and Argentina Quit the World Health Organization: What Happens Next? (In 2 minutes)

Share

A quick summary of this Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)’s points, with international law commentary:

Subscribe now

1. Stop fighting forever: Both sides end the war immediately, stop attacking, and respect Lebanon’s borders

Problem: Israel is still attacking Lebanon.

Since Israel hasn’t signed this deal, it has no legal obligation to stop. The US promised Iran an outcome it can’t actually compel Israel to deliver.

Also relevant: Israel’s conduct in Lebanon is actually governed by the bilateral Israel-Lebanon ceasefire implemented on 3 June 2026, which says Israel has the right to act ‘in self-defense at any time against planned, imminent or ongoing attacks’. So it can claim self-defense and keep attacking.

So this specific MoU clause is hollow until at least one of the following happens:

(a) The binding UN Security Council resolution promised in clause 14 below imposes obligations on Israel directly;

(b) Another agreement on this specific point is signed between the US, Iran, Israel and Lebanon;

(c) The US gets Israel to stop.

Share

2. Respect each other’s independence: No interfering in each other’s internal affairs

This is a core international law under Article 2(7) UN Charter. Good.

3. Aim to reach a final deal within 60 days (unless both agree to extend)

The final deal will (most probably) be a legally binding treaty, but this MoU isn’t. So, if either side breaches it in the next 60 days, there’s no formal enforcement mechanism… just the threat of Iran walking away or the US resuming sanctions or strikes. It’s as fragile as their previous ceasefire deal was.

4. US lifts naval blockade within 30 days

Good. The naval blockade was legally questionable anyway (as covered in another SAIL post).

5. Strait of Hormuz reopens

Iran will let ships pass through the Strait of Hormuz for free for 60 days, get it fully back to normal within 30 days, and will later talk with Gulf countries about how to manage the Strait long-term

This doesn’t clarify anything about the legal status of the Strait, i.e., how much control Iran can have over it (I covered the issue here).Will likely be left to later negotiations.

The ‘passing for free’ part is also awkward because international law doesn’t let countries charge ships simply for passing through an international strait. This is the only part of this MoU that isn’t as international law-compliant, in my view.

6. The US and partner countries will set up at least $300 billion to help rebuild Iran

This doesn’t read as the US paying reparations under international law for invading Iran, and it’s carefully drafted to avoid those optics.

It reads more like a political inducement or economic ‘carrot’ to get Iran to sign and respect the deal.

Subscribe now

7. All sanctions on Iran are eventually lifted

The US agrees to eventually remove all sanctions on Iran (including UN ones) on a timeline to be worked out in the final deal.

Obama’s deal (JCPOA) only lifted nuclear-related sanctions, leaving others (e.g., missile, terrorism, human rights) in place, while Trump seems to be lifting it all (?).

Obama also put mechanics in place: a snapback mechanism letting US, UK, China, Russia, France or Germany reimpose them unilaterally within 30 days of a violation by Iran. Trump doesn’t have one yet… but might in 60 days’ time.

8. Iran won’t build nukes

Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be diluted under international inspection. Bigger questions (like whether Iran can keep enriching uranium at all) get settled in the final deal.

This principle is recycled from Obama’s deal, but more vague… likely leaving the actual cap, percentage, and duration to be negotiated within the 60-day window.

9. Freeze things for now

Until the final deal, Iran keeps its nuclear programme as-is (no expansion), and the US won’t add new sanctions or send more troops to the region.

Typical for a temporary MoU of this nature.

10. Allow Iranian oil exports

The US will immediately let Iran export oil and related products/services again, upon signing, before any nuclear steps are verified.

Obama’s Iran deal removed oil sanctions only after Iran completed specific dismantlement steps.

Share

11. The US will release Iran’s money

Iran can actually use its frozen funds and assets now.

Obama’s deal only unfroze Iran’s money after inspectors confirmed Iran had actually scaled back its nuclear programme.

This time, Iran gets its money back first, while the nuclear rules are still being worked out.

12. Set up a system to make sure both sides follow the deal

That will likely be some kind of political/diplomatic body (not a legal institution like a court) made up of representatives from both sides who will monitor the situation.

13. Negotiate the rest after early steps start

Israel stops war in Lebanon. US lifts the naval blockade, lets Iran export oil and unlocks Iran’s frozen funds. Iran reopens Hormuz. Then phase-two negotiations can start.

14. Final agreement gets approved through a binding UN Security Council resolution.

Subscribe now

Overall thoughts:

(a) The US has given far more than Iran, folks (lifted sanctions, oil export waivers, unfrozen funds, a $300 billion reconstruction plan!). In return, Iran only reaffirmed what it always said (no nuclear weapons) and possibly carries on managing the Strait as it always did. Unless the terms on Iran’s existing enriched uranium stockpile ends up stricter than what Obama secured in 2015, it’s hard to see what this war will actually have achieved for the US…

(b) This is genuine progress and a solid start, but it’s too early to get excited. The real sticking points (sanctions timeline, Iran’s enrichment rights, the future of the Strait of Hormuz), and the Israel-Lebanon situation, are still unresolved. Until those pieces fall into place, this MoU could still collapse.

(c) Largely compliant with international law. There’s been a lot of talk about international being ‘dead’, but this deal is itself an international legal text. Even in the biggest legal blunders, countries still turn back to law to structure the way out. That, for me, is something to celebrate.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• Israel’s Occupation of Southern Lebanon: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• The Strait of Hormuz II: Answering Your International Law Questions in 3 Minutes

• The Strait of Hormuz: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• Five Reasons the US-Iran Ceasefire Is Legally Fragile (in 3 minutes)

• Israel’s Occupation of Southern Lebanon: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• The Iran Deal, Explained: What the U.S. Is Actually Demanding and the Legal Problems With It (3 minutes)

• The US-Israel-Iran War Has Been Ugly. Here’s What International Law Says (in 3 minutes)

• 10 Days, 10 Issues: The International Law of the US-Israel-Iran War (in 3 minutes)

• Was Killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Lawful Under International Law? (In 2 minutes)

• The U.S. and Israel Strike Iran: A 2-Minute International Law Breakdown

• The Iran Protests Explained in 2 Minutes

Share

The 2026 Men’s World Cup starts today!

Millions of migrant workers, fans, and journalists from at least 48 countries will be flocking to the US, Canada and Mexico in the coming weeks.

If a migrant worker is exploited, a journalist is detained, or a fan aggressively arrested (likely in the US these days), immigration lawyers are scattered across the US ready to spring into action. But can international law also protect you?

Subscribe now

1. Your best bet is consular law, not international human rights law

Imagine the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) aggressively detains you (as they often do) during a match in Houston because it suspects you’re undocumented.

ICE is a federal agency, so the US should be held responsible for ICE’s actions under international law.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects everyone from arbitrary detention, no matter what their immigration status is.

But it won’t help you in the US, which hasn’t accepted the procedure allowing individuals to bring complaints under it. And although it will help you if you get detained by police in Mexico or Canada, and you can file a complaint against either of them to a UN committee, that decision will be a non-binding recommendation.

Share

The Inter-American Human Rights Commission covers human rights violations by countries in the region (including the US, Canada and Mexico) but similarly, its decisions are non-binding recommendations, not enforceable judgments.

But outside human rights, there’s the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). This gives anyone detained in a foreign country the right to contact their consulate.

It’s a binding treaty, and the US and many other countries (including yours, most likely) are parties to it. It’s your best bet.

2. You’ll struggle to hold FIFA accountable for anything

FIFA will not have directly done whatever happened to you… but it will have created the environment for those violations to happen in the first place. So you can go after them too, right?

Not quite.

First, there is no binding international law that directly applies to FIFA.

It’s registered as a Swiss association.

International (human rights) law doesn’t create direct binding obligations on associations. It doesn’t hold them responsible. Its focus is on states.

That means any architecture for accountability under international law, like treaty bodies, international courts, or state responsibility, can’t be used directly against FIFA.

Subscribe now

Second, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights do tell businesses like FIFA to stop contributing to human rights harm through their own activities. But they’re guidelines that aren’t binding law.

Third, FIFA has shielded itself from human rights accountability in the Host City Agreements it signed with the 16 individual cities where matches will be held.

Don’t get me wrong… those host agreements do say FIFA and the cities will respect human rights.

They’re also inspired by FIFA’s own Human Rights Framework that it developed following the Qatar 2022 World Cup human rights controversies. Progress!

But… take FIFA’s agreement with LA for example. Now imagine a fan gets detained by the LA police during a match.

The agreement basically says the fan would have to report their complaint through whatever grievance channel FIFA has chosen to create (if it does!), hope that FIFA investigates, and then hope that FIFA decides to act on the findings.

… Mmkay, thanks.

… And FIFA itself? Faces no consequence whatsoever. FIFA is never the subject of the complaint. It has cleverly structured the entire system so that accountability flows downward to host cities… never upward to itself.

On that cheerful note… Enjoy the games, let me know who you’re supporting in the comments! Oh, and check out some resources here:

• 2026 World Cup Fan and Community Guide (including hotlines)

• Committee to Protect Journalists at the 2026 World Cup

• The 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup: Know Your Rights, Know Your Risks | American Civil Liberties Union

The information provided in this SAIL post is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek the advice of a qualified legal professional regarding your specific situation before taking any action.

Share this with anyone watching the 2026 World Cup!

Share

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Does International Law Have a Place at Eurovision? (In 2 minutes)

5 Ways the Epstein Files Connect to International Law (in 2 minutes)

3 Ways Bad Bunny’s 2026 Super Bowl Performance Reflected International Law (in 1 minute)

5 Ways Santa Claus Might Bend International Law (If He Existed)… in 2 minutes

Eurovision Meets International Law: What to say at the Dinner Table (in 3 minutes)

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Yup, Romania’s just been roped into the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.

1. Did this break international law?

Yes, almost certainly, on two separate grounds.

First, airspace sovereignty. A foreign military drone entering Romanian airspace without permission is a violation of its airspace under the 1944 Chicago Convention.

Second, the laws of warfare. Even though the conflict is between Russia and Ukraine, neither can attack the other without taking all precautions to avoid harming other countries.

2. Is Russia actually responsible?

Most probably.

Under international law, responsibility requires two things: breach (did it violate a legal obligation? I covered this above) and attribution (was this Russia’s drone?).

Putin denies that it was Russia’s drone and suggested the drone might be Ukrainian.

But Romania’s foreign minister confirmed that it was a Russian drone carrying explosives, based on forensic analysis of the wreckage.

Putin has disputed the finding and demanded access to the wreckage. It would strengthen Romania’s case to share the evidence or invite independent third-party verification, but it’s not legally required to.

Share

3. Can Romania strike Russia back?

No.

Romania’s right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter requires an “armed attack”.

International law interprets that threshold as requiring scale and gravity beyond a single errant drone.

4. So what can Romania actually do?

Expel Romanian diplomats from Russia (which it has done).

Close consulates.

Demand reparations through diplomatic channels.

A bigger move: Romania is a party to the International Criminal Court and could refer the incident to the Court to the existing Ukraine situation.

It could frame it as a war crime, if it can be proven that Russia was intentionally directing attacks against Romanian civilians.

Share

5. What can NATO do?

Romania is a NATO member. It’s considering invoking Article 4 of NATO’s treaty, which triggers formal consultations between NATO members when one of them is threatened.

But the big NATO move would be Article 5: all members will defend an attacked member (because an attack against one is an attack against all).

NATO hasn’t done this (yet?). It’s blamed Russia and condemned Russia’s move for now.

This could be because NATO doesn’t consider this to be an ‘attack’ in legal terms. It could also be because it’s reluctant to escalate this into a full-blown world war (fair enough!).

6. Now what?

These types of spill overs can happen. A Ukrainian missile struck Poland and killed two people back in 2022.

The law is clear. The solution? Make enough noise that neither Russia nor Ukraine does this again, and keep a record for the day of reckoning when the war finally ends.

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• 4 Years On: 4 International Law Takeaways from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine (in 2 minutes)

• 4 Ways Trump’s Ukraine-Russia Peace Plan Violates International Law (in 2 minutes)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was asked to answer one question: Does workers’ rights to strike count as a protected right under a major international labour treaty from 1948?

Yesterday, it answered: Yes.

Subscribe now

What’s the back story?

The treaty in question is called Convention No. 87. It was adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO): a UN agency made up of governments, employers, and workers’ groups. Countries that sign up to it promise to protect workers’ rights to form unions and organise.

But here’s the thing: the treaty never actually says that the right to strike is protected too.

This wasn’t an accident. When governments, employers, and workers’ groups wrote the treaty, they couldn’t agree on strikes… so they left it out.

Over time, though, international labour experts started treating the right to strike as an assumed, obvious part of the deal (‘If you can organise, you can strike’). But employers eventually pushed back and said: “Wait… we never agreed to that.”

So they asked the ICJ to settle it.

Share

What was each side arguing?

Workers’ groups said: The right to strike is so essential to the right to organise that it’s automatically included, even if the treaty doesn’t explicitly say so.

Employers’ groups said: The treaty was deliberately silent on strikes. You can’t just read in obligations that were specifically left out during negotiations. If we’d wanted strikes included, we would have said so.

Why does this matter?

Convention No. 87 is one of the most widely accepted labour treaties in the world. Chances are the country you live in has signed up to respect it.

The ICJ opinion doesn’t create the right to strike from scratch (it’s already in a major human rights treaty). But including it in Convention No. 87 is powerful because of how it gets enforced:

If you're a worker anywhere in the world and your government bans strikes, unions can now file complaints with the ILO citing this opinion… and your government faces real international pressure to back down.

So next time you go out to strike and your boss says you can’t? Check if your country is part of Convention No. 87. If it is, tell them: the ICJ said my right to strike is protected under international law.

(And drop a comment if you need a lawyer 😁)

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

The U.S. Goes to Court To Defend Israel Against Genocide Charges (in 2 minutes)

How the International Criminal Court Ended Up in Its Chaos Era (Explained in 2 minutes)

A New York Times investigation just revealed that Israel spent at least $1 million on government-funded Eurovision campaigns between 2018-2025, with coordinated voting drives that likely influenced results.

The findings shed new light on this weekend’s Eurovision Song Contest, where Bulgaria won for the first time and Israel finished second.

The contest was overshadowed by controversy over Israel's participation despite the war in Gaza, which led to Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Iceland boycotting.

The revelations raise bigger questions:

Subscribe now

1. Does international law have a place at Eurovision?

No:

An EBU rep just said, “We’re not the United Nations”.

The contest is run by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), a Swiss-based association of broadcasting organisations.

It is nothing like the UN, the EU or NATO, which are actual international organisations dealing with international law-related issues, created by countries through agreements.

So, they’ll argue, Eurovision simply isn’t a place where questions about who’s breaking which international law really belong.

Share

Yes:

Others will argue that in reality, Eurovision is a cultural stage for countries.

They perform under their flags, national broadcasters select national entries and governments celebrate victories (or fume over losses).

In that sense, Eurovision becomes one of the many informal channels through which countries act, react and relate to each other. It could be seen as a space for soft diplomacy.

Once you see it that way, it makes perfect sense that the contest has become a site where international law debates spill over – even though EBU says it’s apolitical.

History backs this up: The EBU itself banned Russia from participating in Eurovision 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine, to avoid “bringing the competition into disrepute” (though apparently said recently it might lift the ban.)

2. Do countries have a legal duty to boycott?

Many will say there’s a moral duty to stand up to bad behaviour. But is there a legal duty… and one that other European countries might have to follow in the years to come?

No:

International law has something called the duty of non-recognition – basically, a rule that says countries must not treat certain serious violations of international law as normal or legitimate (here, at Article 41(2)).

In this situation, that would normally translate into things like not giving Israel any weapons or not recognizing the way Israel divides Gazan territory.

Share

It wouldn’t require banning Israel from Eurovision, since the contest isn’t governed by international law and a boycott wouldn’t directly change the situation on the ground.

So there is no legal requirement for any other European country to follow the lead of Ireland and its allies.

Yes:

It doesn’t really matter where or how non-recognition should be expressed.

Countries have applied their duty of non-recognition in cultural arenas before.

For example: In response to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, more than 60 countries (led by the USA) refused to send athletes to the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow.

Another example is the 1986 boycott of the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh by several African, Asian, and Caribbean countries, protesting the UK government’s refusal to sanction apartheid South Africa.

So, applying non-recognition logic to high-profile cultural normalisation is not unthinkable.

Allowing a country to appear, under its flag, on a high-visibility international stage can be seen as a form of recognising its ordinary standing in the world.

As all countries have a duty of non-recognition, European countries would have to uphold that in this context, too (by, for example, boycotting).

Share

Whatever position you take, one thing is clear:

International law seeps into everyday culture and isn’t limited to hallways of the UN in Geneva or New York… It shows up in unexpected places: sequins, ballads, and televotes.

If you found this helpful, share it with someone who needs Eurovision drama explained (and subscribe for more!).

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

How International Law protects you (or doesn’t) at the 2026 World Cup

5 Ways the Epstein Files Connect to International Law (in 2 minutes)

3 Ways Bad Bunny’s 2026 Super Bowl Performance Reflected International Law (in 1 minute)

5 Ways Santa Claus Might Bend International Law (If He Existed)… in 2 minutes

Eurovision Meets International Law: What to say at the Dinner Table (in 3 minutes)

Share

[The usual caveats apply: this is a simplified explainer, lawyers may disagree on several of these points, and by the time you read this, something may have already changed.]

Hantavirus has been spreading from a cruise ship that left Argentina on April 1st 2026.

The World Health Organization (WHO) says the global risk is low and it’s not another COVID-19.

But there’s no treatment or vaccine, people have died and ~30 passengers who left the ship early are being tracked across the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, and other countries.

So can international law actually stop something like this?

Subscribe now

Right now: The system is working

Hantavirus is a contained outbreak; not a pandemic. The International Health Regulations (IHR) are the rulebook on how countries handle diseases that cross borders.

It was updated and took effect in September 2025 (following COVID-19 failures).

E.g.: When the UK notified WHO on 2 May about the cruise ship, it was directly following the IHR.

• One big COVID lesson: fewer people fumbling around

Under the updated IHR, countries must now create one National IHR Authority: a government office in charge of coordinating responses to cross-border health threats.

Before, during COVID-19, you had lots of departments doing their own thing and fumbling to figure out who’s in charge.

This has possibly improved coordination for hantavirus. The WHO says countries are coordinating well. Good sign.

Share

• Vaccine hoarding is supposed to be harder now

Under the updated IHR, WHO must help countries get fair access to vaccines and actively remove obstacles preventing this.

This fixes one of COVID’s biggest failures: rich countries bought up vaccines while others waited months or years.

If a hantavirus vaccine were developed, WHO would be legally required to ensure Cape Verde or South Africa (where the cruise ship stopped) get access at the same time as the UK or Switzerland.

(Of course, countries must be willing to make this happen too.)

The problem is 11 countries (including Germany, Israel, Brazil, Canada) rejected these IHR updates. So they’re not bound by the equity provisions. E.g.: If Israel develops a vaccine, it could keep it. Still, for a small outbreak like this, the system is functioning for now.

Subscribe now

If it became a pandemic: Different story

If hantavirus escalates to a true pandemic, different rules also kick in: the Pandemic Agreement.

The problem is that agreement can’t work yet. Countries are still negotiating the crucial part (how to share virus samples and vaccines) through 2027. Until then, it’s just paper and countries would share vaccines out of goodwill, not legal obligation.

And WHO has less power to push them because:

• The US exited WHO taking ~$1 billion in funding

This forced WHO to cut 1,200 jobs (22% of staff) by June 2026.

Countries have pledged more funding to compensate, and would need to hurry if a pandemic broke out.

• Argentina (where the cruise ship came from) left too

It left on 17 March 2026, just weeks before this outbreak! So it has no legal obligation to share findings or participate in the global response.

But it will keep cooperating with PAHO (WHO’s regional office for the Americas), so neighbouring countries can still share its hantavirus data with the global WHO system.

One silver lining:

The updated IHR created a new ‘pandemic emergency’ alert level that triggers stronger coordination. So at least the alarm bells would be louder.

In brief:

For this outbreak, international law is mostly doing its job. But for the next pandemic? Only if countries actually fund and use the tools they’ve built.

If you found this useful, share it with someone who might find it useful too!

Share

If you enjoyed this SAIL post, you might also enjoy:

• The U.S. and Argentina Quit the World Health Organization: What Happens Next? (In 2 minutes)

• How to Explain the International Law Behind Ebola To Your Friends in 3 Minutes

Leave a comment

[The usual caveats apply: this is a simplified explainer, lawyers disagree on several of these points, and by the time you read this, something may have already changed.]

The Global Sumud Flotilla is a fleet of civilian ships carrying doctors, journalists, activists and politicians from 40+ countries, loaded with food, medicine and baby formula.

It has attempted multiple times to sail to Gaza and break Israel’s naval blockade, and has been intercepted (i.e. stopped, controlled, boarded, searched) by Israel every time (latest episode = April 2026.)

Subscribe now

PART 1: WAS ISRAEL ALLOWED TO STOP THE FLOTILLA?

Not under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

UNCLOS says that no country can board another country’s ship without permission once you’re beyond a country’s coastal waters.

That rule applies whether you’re in the open ocean or, as here, in the waters near Crete.

Israel isn’t a party to UNCLOS, but that rule is so universally practiced and accepted that it binds every country whether they’ve signed the treaty or not.

Share

The Flotilla ships had national flags indicating they belonged to those countries (e.g., Spain, France and Italy) who were furious. Many called it an act of piracy. (Legally, piracy usually involves private actors, not state militaries, so that label is contested.)

But Israel would argue we’re looking at the wrong rulebook. UNCLOS doesn’t apply at all and wartime naval law takes over entirely, because it’s at war with Hamas and running a legal naval blockade of Gaza.

So the question is, under wartime naval law: is there actually a legal blockade? (PART 2) And even if it is… did it handle the flotilla lawfully? (PART 3) Let’s go!

PART 2: IS ISRAEL’S BLOCKADE OF GAZA LEGAL?

A naval blockade is a military operation that stops ships from reaching a coastline.

The logic is simple: if you’re at war with someone, you can cut off their supply lines by sea.

To assess if the blockade is legal, there are two questions: Did Israel have the legal right to impose a blockade to begin with? And even if yes, is it running the blockade legally?

Subscribe now

Did Israel have the right to impose a blockade?

This is disputed.

Blocking Gaza’s coast is using force under international law.

The only two things that can make this use of force legal are UN Security Council approval or self-defence.

The Security Council didn’t sign off on Israel’s blockade, but Israel says it’s acting in self-defense against Hamas’ October 7 and years of prior attacks.

It’s supported by one 2011 UN report saying the blockade is ‘a legitimate security measure to prevent weapons entering Gaza’.

The catch: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said you can’t be both the occupier and claim you’re defending yourself against the people you’re occupying… and also said Gaza is occupied Palestinian territory. That contradiction is Israel’s core problem.

Even if yes, is Israel running the blockade legally?

Unlikely.

A legally-run blockade must meet five conditions: publicly declared, consistently enforced to all ships, during an inter-state war, must not starve civilians, and must allow humanitarian aid through. Miss any one and it’s illegal. The first two aren’t the main controversy. The last three are tricky for Israel.

During an inter-state war:

The 2011 UN report says Hamas functions enough like a state to trigger the laws of inter-state war. Critics reject this argument. They also say Gaza is illegally occupied by Israel and you can’t be at war with/blockade territory you occupy. No inter-state war = no blockade.

Share

Must not starve civilians:

The UN, World Health Organization, Amnesty International and others have all said Gaza’s civilian population has faced famine conditions as a direct result of the blockade.

Starvation as a war crime is being investigated by the International Criminal Court and the UN and EU say the blockade is collective punishment (a war crime). It also feeds directly into the genocide case South Africa has brought against Israel.

Israel says the famine is fake news.

Must allow humanitarian aid through:

Israel says the flotilla was a Hamas operation, there was no humanitarian gap justifying it, and it was actually carrying drugs and condoms.

The UN Security Council and the ICJ have told Israel to stop blocking humanitarian aid.

Subscribe now

PART 3: DID ISRAEL LAWFULLY INTERCEPT THE FLOTILLA UNDER WARTIME NAVAL LAW?

We established in Part 1 that under UNCLOS, Israel had no right to intercept the flotilla. But even accepting the argument that wartime naval law applies instead, the conclusion’s… probably the same.

First off, under wartime naval law, if there’s no legal blockade then any interception of the flotilla is unlawful. Full stop. If that’s your position, you can stop reading and mosey on with your day (hit that ‘Like’ button first, though! 😄)

But even a legal blockade doesn’t give Israel a blank cheque! It still has to intercept correctly. That means no intercepting humanitarian ships, no harming people onboard, humane treatment of anyone detained and no intercepting from an unreasonable distance.

No intercepting humanitarian ships:

You can stop ships trying to breach your blockade, unless they’re on a humanitarian mission, in which case they’re completely exempt and can’t be touched. Israel says it isn’t humanitarian, others disagree.

No harming people onboard:

Israel says the operation was conducted peacefully and without casualties. But activists reported being subjected to extreme brutality.

Humane treatment of anyone detained:

Detainees reported Israel was violent and treated them badly. Israel says detainees were unharmed.

No intercepting from an unreasonable distance:

The law doesn’t clearly say what the appropriate distance is, but the 2011 UN report said the 2010 Mavi Marmara interception was 72 miles/133 km too far, while the 2026 interception happened at 600 miles/1111 km!

But Israel says the size of the flotilla (over 100 vessels) justified early interception for safety and security reasons.

More generally Israel also has to follow basic wartime rules like proportionality (meaning the military benefit of stopping the flotilla has to outweigh the harm caused, especially to civilians). Based on the facts, hard to say this was proportionate… but what do you think?

Leave a comment

In brief, my friends:

UNCLOS says no → flotilla interception already unlawful.
Wartime naval law applies → but legality of blockade is contested.
If blockade is legal → must still follow interception rules but likely didn’t → unlawful.

If you found this useful, share it with someone who might find it useful too!

Share

If you enjoyed this SAIL post, you might also enjoy:

• 5 Legal Problems With Trump’s Board of Peace (in 2 minutes)

• The US-Israel-Iran War Has Been Ugly. Here's What International Law Says (in 3 minutes)

• The Iran Deal, Explained: What the U.S. Is Actually Demanding and the Legal Problems With It (3 minutes)

• Israel’s Occupation of Southern Lebanon: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• Five Reasons the US-Iran Ceasefire Is Legally Fragile (in 3 minutes)

• The Strait of Hormuz II: Answering Your International Law Questions in 3 Minutes

• The 14-Point Iran-US Deal: An International Law Breakdown

Leave a comment

You’ve probably heard that campaigning is in full swing to elect the next UN Secretary-General by the end of 2026 (full process explained here).

Four candidates are in the running: Michelle Bachelet (former Chilean president), Rafael Grossi (head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rican economist), and Macky Sall (former Senegalese president).

Subscribe now

Media coverage is focusing on geopolitics, regional rotation and debates on electing a female SG for the first time (all important!).

But here’s what won’t make headlines: whether the next Secretary-General (SG) will actually strengthen international law… or just keep tweeting about it.

(Yes, I’m calling it ‘tweeting’. Let me have this.)

Here are four ways a bold SG could make a difference.

Share

1. SG can tell the UN Security Council: “Hey, you need to look at this.”

Article 99 of the UN Charter lets the SG bring issues to the Security Council’s attention, basically saying ‘this is a threat to peace, you need to act’.

It’s seen as confrontational (like the SG saying “I think this is urgent even if you don’t” or “you’re not doing your job properly”) and risky (overstepping into ‘political’ territory, might be ignored, and might irritate the body controlling the SG’s reappointment!).

So it’s only been used a handful of times in 80+ years…

A bold SG could put climate change, pandemics, or AI governance on the Council’s agenda, which could lead to binding resolutions. A timid one won’t.

2. The SG can waive immunity

UN staff can’t be arrested or prosecuted in the countries where they’re working, for anything they claim was part of their job.

The problem? Crimes like sexual abuse are not a part of their job.

But the UN must decide case-by-case whether to waive immunity… and it rarely does.

So often, accountability is limited.

The SG has the power to waive the immunity for civilian UN staff accused of serious crimes (not military peacekeepers).

A bold SG might do so.

Subscribe now

3. The SG can appoint Special Envoys

The SG can pick and create Special Envoys : high-level diplomats sent to tackle specific problems (e.g., HIV/AIDS, indigenous people, youth) or focus on specific countries/regions (e.g., Syria, Sudan, Haiti) on the SG’s behalf.

So… what about a Special Envoy of International Law?

I’m serious.

Given the state of the world, maybe we need someone who pushes compliance with International Court of Justice judgments, discourages treaty withdrawals, and nudges states to join agreements gathering dust…

Someone who can knock on doors and say “remember those rules you signed up for?”.

4. The SG can say ‘no’ to powerful countries

Article 100 of the UN Charter protects the SG’s independence: governments aren’t supposed to tell them how to do their job.

This is permission to be bold.

A bold SG uses the powers above despite any pressure or backlash from any government, because Article 100 says they answer only to the UN Charter, not to any government.

Conclusion

Let’s be realistic: the P5 countries (USA, UK, France, China, Russia) largely control the SG’s appointment and reappointment.

An SG who’s a little too bold probably won’t last.

But one who’s too timid won’t matter either… especially now, when the UN is struggling financially, being sidelined diplomatically, and failing to get states to take international law seriously.

We need a SG who understands the risk and takes it anyway. Because international law won’t magically strengthen itself: it needs someone willing to fight for it.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• The UN Just Passed a Slave Trade Resolution: A 2-Minute International Law Breakdown

• Has the U.S. really “Withdrawn” from 66 International Organisations? A 2-Minute International Law Explainer

Share

[The usual caveats apply: this is a simplified explainer, lawyers disagree on several of these points, and by the time you read this, something may have already changed.]

Subscribe now

The legal controversies around the Strait of Hormuz matter: they shape what the U.S. and Iran can demand in negotiations, what other countries can push back on, and give you the full picture of the ongoing conflict. So, let’s get into it!

1. What law(s) govern the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait is governed by the regime of transit passage under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), giving all ships the right to sail through it.

But Iran isn’t a party to UNCLOS, and it’s not 100% clear in international law that transit passage rules are so universal that they apply to Iran regardless.

So Iran says: this doesn’t apply to us.

(I covered this in more depth in a previous post.)

Share

2. Is Iran violating countries’ freedom of navigation by closing the Strait?

Yes.

Freedom of navigation is a general principle that ships should be able to move freely.

It’s so widely accepted that it almost certainly applies to all countries, whether or not they’ve signed UNCLOS.

There are some maritime zones where restrictions apply, but completely closing an international strait like Hormuz violates this freedom (as well as transit passage rules).

So even if Iran successfully argues “UNCLOS doesn’t bind me, so the transit passage rules don’t apply”, it must still respect the freedom of navigation and let ships pass through the Strait.

3. People keep saying the Strait of Hormuz is part of ‘international waters’. Is it?

No.

‘International waters’ isn’t a legal term.

The closest term that exists is “high seas” – parts of the world’s oceans that no single country controls (roughly 70% of the Earth’s surface).

But the Strait of Hormuz isn’t in the high seas. It’s clearly in Iran and Oman’s territorial waters.

Subscribe now

4. Is the U.S. imposing a naval blockade on Iran lawful?

Probably not.

International law allows a country (e.g. the U.S.) to hit back when another country (e.g. Iran) breaks the rules. These are called countermeasures.

But there’s a hard limit: countermeasures can’t involve the use of force.

And parking warships outside someone’s ports to stop ships getting in or out is using force under international law.

The only two things that can make this use of force legal are UN Security Council approval or self-defence.

Neither applies here: the Security Council hasn’t signed off on it, and self-defence only kicks in if the U.S. had actually been attacked.

Most would say closing the Strait doesn’t qualify as an ‘armed attack’, though some disagree.

So the U.S. naval blockade is likely illegal.

5. Can other countries impacted by the U.S. blockade do anything?

Yes.

Countermeasures can’t be exercised against third parties that haven’t done anything wrong (e.g., the U.S. turning away Indian ships bound for Iran, or oil tankers serving European countries).

The U.S. could be liable to those third countries for any harm caused.

They can formally protest (e.g., summon the U.S. ambassadors) or even negotiate compensation (though getting the U.S. to actually pay up is another matter entirely…).

Subscribe now

6. Is the way the U.S. naval blockade is being carried out lawful?

Probably not.

Separate from whether the blockade should exist at all, there’s the question of how it’s being enforced. And it’s not looking great here either.

Under the international law rulebook for naval warfare, the U.S. ticks some boxes: it announced the blockade publicly and is applying it impartially to all countries’ ships.

But two problems:

First, a blockade is only a recognised legal tool during armed conflict. But there’s currently a ceasefire in place (i.e. no armed conflict), which raises the question of whether the US can legally use it at all?

Second, Iran’s coastline is 1,100 miles long, the U.S. is operating alone and has asked for help, and it seems like a massive undertaking. That raises questions about whether the blockade meets the legal requirement of effectiveness.

So… the blockade likely isn’t clearly being lawfully carried out either.

7. The U.S. attacked and captured an Iranian cargo ship trying to get past its blockade of Iran’s ports. Was that lawful?

If the blockade is unlawful (which is likely), neither attacking nor capturing the ship is justified.

For those who argue the blockade is lawful, then capturing it is lawful but attacking it without prior warning isn’t.

8. Iran wants to charge tolls for ships to pass through the Strait. Is that lawful?

Probably not, but it’s hard to enforce.

UNCLOS explicitly forbids it, but Iran isn’t a party to UNCLOS.

It’s also not 100% clear that this rule on tolls is so universally widely accepted that it applies to Iran regardless.

And unlike the Suez Canal, Panama Canal or Bosphorus, which all have/had their own specific international treaties governing passage and fees, no such treaty exists for the Strait of Hormuz.

9. How does this all impact the ceasefire?

It puts enormous strain on an already fragile agreement.

Neither side is fully complying: Iran is (still) closing the Strait, the U.S. is imposing a blockade, and each is accusing the other of ceasefire violations. Yikes.

It also highlights why any lasting deal has to resolve the Strait question directly.

Right now the two sides couldn’t be further apart: Iran wants full recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait, the U.S. wants a guarantee it can never be closed again.

Let’s see what happens.

If you found this useful, share it with someone who might find it useful too!

Share

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• The Strait of Hormuz: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• Five Reasons the US-Iran Ceasefire Is Legally Fragile (in 3 minutes)

• Israel’s Occupation of Southern Lebanon: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• The Iran Deal, Explained: What the U.S. Is Actually Demanding and the Legal Problems With It (3 minutes)

• The US-Israel-Iran War Has Been Ugly. Here’s What International Law Says (in 3 minutes)

• 10 Days, 10 Issues: The International Law of the US-Israel-Iran War (in 3 minutes)

• Was Killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Lawful Under International Law? (In 2 minutes)

• The U.S. and Israel Strike Iran: A 2-Minute International Law Breakdown

• The Iran Protests Explained in 2 Minutes

• The 14-Point Iran-US Deal: An International Law Breakdown

Leave a comment

Trump announced he would pause bombing Iran for two weeks and Iran said it would open the Strait of Hormuz.

Both are gearing up for negotiations mediated by Pakistan.

But literally hours after the announcements, Israel bombed Lebanon and Iran started blocking Hormuz traffic again.

What’s going on? Beyond the obvious geopolitical tensions, this ceasefire is also legally fragile. Here’s how:

Subscribe now

1. The U.S./Iran haven’t committed to identical terms

The US and Iran have both publicly committed to something: a two-week pause, stopping attacks, opening the Strait of Hormuz.

But they haven’t committed to identical terms.

Compare what they actually said:

On the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING” while Iran said “safe passage via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations”. Those are two different things.

So if Iran blocks ships citing ‘technical limitations’ and the US calls it a breach, it’ll be hard to settle who’s right.

Share

2. The ceasefire isn’t a binding treaty

The ceasefire would be binding if it were a treaty: a written agreement between states.

Instead: separate social media posts saying different things.

3. U.S./Iran haven’t made binding unilateral statements either

Fun international law fact: a country can legally bind itself just by publicly saying it will do something, as long as it intends to be bound by that statement.

But these social media posts are phrased conditionally: “I will do X if you do Y (my action depends on you)”:

The U.S.: “subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz”

Iran: “If attacks against Iran are halted, our Powerful Armed Forces will cease”

A unilateral declaration is ‘I will do X’ unconditionally.

Conditioning on the other side’s performance shows you don’t intend to be legally bound no matter what. These are political commitments, not legal obligations.

So if either side breaks its “promise,” no one can credibly say “you violated international law” because neither side actually accepted a binding legal obligation.

Subscribe now

4. It hasn’t defined what’s allowed in the next two weeks

Can the US resupply its military bases in Qatar?

Can Iran repair bombed power plants and weapons facilities?

Can either side move troops or bring in fresh weapons systems?

Can Israel continue its invasion of southern Lebanon?

Nobody knows, because the parties never agreed on these points.

The result is a pause that exists only as long as neither side decides to start bombing again, making the ceasefire inherently unstable.

5. There’s no ‘referee’

There’s no mechanism to determine when it’s been violated or who violated it first.

No arbitration panel. No monitoring body. No enforcement mechanism.

That means either side can claim the other broke the deal, restart hostilities, and face no consequences…

Ceasefires rely entirely on both sides’ good faith. And I suspect that’ll be in short supply after weeks of bombing each other...

Conclusion

This ‘ceasefire’ is held together by political convenience, not legal obligation. And that makes it extremely fragile.

Next: the Islamabad talks, where the US and Iranian proposals need to be hammered into a single, binding agreement.

Let’s hope for the best.

Stay tuned for more legal breakdowns right here on SAIL.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• Israel’s Occupation of Southern Lebanon: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• The Iran Deal, Explained: What the U.S. Is Actually Demanding and the Legal Problems With It (3 minutes)

• The US-Israel-Iran War Has Been Ugly. Here’s What International Law Says (in 3 minutes)

• The Strait of Hormuz: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• 10 Days, 10 Issues: The International Law of the US-Israel-Iran War (in 3 minutes)

• Was Killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Lawful Under International Law? (In 2 minutes)

• The U.S. and Israel Strike Iran: A 2-Minute International Law Breakdown

• The Iran Protests Explained in 2 Minutes

• The 14-Point Iran-US Deal: An International Law Breakdown

Share

Israel launched a ground invasion of Southern Lebanon, targeting the area from its border to the Litani River (~22 miles/35km: huge!).

A country occupies another to control territory for protection or strategic advantage.

Occupation can be lawful or unlawful depending on why and how it’s done.

Subscribe now

1. Israel’s grounds for occupation are unlawful (why it’s done)

Occupation is lawful only if it’s genuine self-defense or UN Security Council-authorised. Neither applies here cleanly.

After Khamenei’s killing, Hezbollah (Iranian-backed armed group in Lebanon) fired at Israel. Israel struck back and launched a ground invasion of Lebanon.

It’s debatable whether this is even self-defense. Here are the issues:

© SAIL 2026 - Do not reproduce without permission

(Shoutout to for the tip on presenting this table!)

Share

But even if Israel had the right to self-defense, it violates international law by failing two tests:

Necessity: Israel could’ve simply stopped attacking Iran, and Lebanon already banned Hezbollah’s military activities.

Proportionality: A full invasion displacing hundreds of thousands is too big. Striking Hezbollah’s rocket sites or temporarily occupying a narrow border strip would be proportionate.

Subscribe now

2. Israel’s conduct of occupation is also unlawful (how it’s done)

Even a legal occupation has strict rules: keep it temporary, don’t settle your people there, make no permanent changes.

Israel is breaking all of them because it’s carrying out annexation.

That’s when you’re supposed to be ‘house-sitting’ but you either declare the ‘house’ is yours (de jure annexation), or act like it by remodeling, moving your family in, changing the locks (de facto annexation)… or both.

Israeli Minister Smotrich explicitly declared the Litani River should be Israel’s new border: de jure annexation.

Netanyahu called for a “security zone” even post-war, a policy that would prevent hundreds of thousands of displaced residents from returning home: de facto annexation — and one that has hardened into permanence before, e.g., Israel’s 1982–2000 Southern Lebanon occupation, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank.

Share

3. Why this matters

The world is distracted by the Iran war and the threat of the Strait of Hormuz closing. But annexation cannot be ignored; it was a primary trigger for WW2. The international system was built specifically to prevent it.

The UN Security Council must demand Israel withdraw (it has done so in the past) and the UN General Assembly can condemn this. It could also ask the International Court of Justice for its opinion, similar to the one it gave in 2024 about Israel’s West Bank occupation.

States must refuse to recognise annexation, condition military aid accordingly, and pressure Israel to pull out.

Letting this succeed tells every territorial aggressor the rules don’t apply when the world looks away.

Leave a comment

If you found this useful, share it with someone who might find it useful too!

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• The Iran Deal, Explained: What the U.S. Is Actually Demanding and the Legal Problems With It (3 minutes)

• The US-Israel-Iran War Has Been Ugly. Here’s What International Law Says (in 3 minutes)

• The Strait of Hormuz: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown

• 10 Days, 10 Issues: The International Law of the US-Israel-Iran War (in 3 minutes)

• Was Killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Lawful Under International Law? (In 2 minutes)

• The U.S. and Israel Strike Iran: A 2-Minute International Law Breakdown

• The Iran Protests Explained in 2 Minutes

• The 14-Point Iran-US Deal: An International Law Breakdown

Share

Did you hear? NASA’s Artemis II just launched, sending astronauts around the Moon and back for the first time in more than 50 years.

The mission, Artemis II, is taking its crew farther from Earth than any humans have ever gone!

Beyond rockets and science, it’s also quietly shaped by international law. Here are five things you might not know:

Subscribe now

1. Every rocket belongs to a country

Under international law, rockets don’t belong to NASA or astronauts, but to countries.

So, Artemis II is a U.S. space object, which means the U.S. is responsible for it. (Even though the crew includes a Canadian astronaut!)

If something were to go wrong at any point (e.g., damage on Earth or to aircraft in flight), responsibility would fall on the U.S.

2. Outer Space treaty yes, Moon Treaty no

The U.S. signed the Outer Space Treaty (1967) because it says no country can own space or put nuclear weapons there, but it still lets countries explore and use space freely.

The Moon Treaty, which came later (1979), tried to go further by suggesting the Moon’s resources should be internationally controlled and shared with everyone.

The U.S. never signed it because it worried that would limit future missions.

(Artemis II wouldn’t break it anyway as it’s just orbiting the Moon; it’s not landing, mining, or claiming anything. But the U.S. didn’t want to rule out future missions that might do so!)

Share

3. Competition is allowed (sort of)

Artemis II has been described as America’s best effort to beat China in the race to return humans to the Moon.

And international law actually allows strategic or political competition.

The Outer Space Treaty requires the Moon to be used for peaceful purposes.

But that only means that hostile acts, threats of force, and weapons of mass destruction are banned.

Exploration can be peaceful under the law while still serving national goals.

(Whether that should count as peaceful is a debate space law never really settled… What do you all think? Let me know in the comments!)

Leave a comment

4. No one can own the Moon

The goal of Artemis II is to bring NASA one step closer to landing astronauts on the Moon, currently planned for mid-2027.

But under the Outer Space Treaty, no country can claim the Moon.

Even landing, spending time there, or planting a flag (looking at you, Armstrong) doesn’t create ownership.

5. Environmental rules are lagging

Rockets release emissions directly into the upper atmosphere, where they can affect ozone levels and climate systems, and space missions can leave behind debris (i.e. bits of old spacecraft).

Yet the main international space treaties were written before environmental protection became a global legal priority.

So, there are no clear international rules about environmental harm caused by space launches/missions. There’s a gap.

So even though Artemis II might cause environmental damage, there’s little that environmentalists can do about it.

If you found this interesting, share it with someone who might enjoy it too!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• 5 Fun International Law Facts about NASA’s next Moon Mission (in 2 minutes)

• The World Just Got a New Treaty for the High Seas. Here’s What It Means (in 2 minutes)

• How to Explain the COP30 Outcomes in 2 minutes

• I Read 133 Pages of the ICJ Climate Change Opinion So You Don’t Have To. Here Are Its 10 Commandments for Countries (in 2 minutes)

• How to Make Sense of COP30 in Brazil (in 2 minutes)

Share

Last week, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution about the 400-year-long transatlantic slave trade.

The resolution basically builds a case for reparations based on historical and legal reasons, but stops short of telling certain states to pay up or how – instead encouraging dialogue about it.

123 states voted in favour, 3 against (the U.S., Israel and Argentina) and 52 abstained (see which here).

Subscribe now

3 THINGS THE RESOLUTION SAYS TO BUILD A CASE FOR REPARATIONS

1. Reparations have historical and legal basis

It says reparations have been provided in other historical contexts. (Hint: Why not this one?)

It lists historical examples where slavery was codified into law to show that it was a state-organized and legally codified system.

It says under international law, reparations are owed following an internationally wrongful act (true).

2. Slavery broke the highest laws of humanity (jus cogens)

The resolution says that slavery wasn’t just wrong, but it broke the highest laws humanity has (called jus cogens norms).

These aren’t rules countries can opt out of, and no amount of time or political deal-making can wipe the slate clean.

The obligation to make it right is still on the table… and it belongs to everyone, not just those directly involved or affected.

Share

3. Slavery is the “gravest crime of humanity”

Calling slavery the “gravest crime against humanity” is a bold move; international law usually avoids ranking atrocities against each other.

This is a key reason European countries weren’t happy about the resolution and abstained.

But the resolution makes the case that slavery was uniquely devastating: its sheer scale, how long it lasted, and the fact that its effects are still reshaping lives today set it apart.

The real goal is political: the worse the crime, the stronger the case for real reparations, not just a symbolic ‘sorry’.

Subscribe now

REMAINING CONTROVERSIES

4. Why didn’t the resolution go further and order reparations?

Making a case and encouraging dialogue is the maximum that could be done given the political sensitivities of the topic.

5. Why 52 abstentions?

Mostly European states were unhappy about slavery being ranked above other atrocities, but also uneasy about a deeper legal problem:

The rules the resolution invokes (jus cogens, crimes against humanity) didn’t exist when slavery was happening. The EU argument: You can’t really break a law before it’s written.

So the resolution is essentially asking countries to pay up today for something that wasn’t technically illegal at the time… which is a genuinely contested question in international law, and one the resolution sidesteps rather than answers.

What do you think about this argument? Let me know in the comments!

Leave a comment

WHAT IMPACT?

6. Does the resolution actually bind anyone?

No.

UN General Assembly resolutions aren’t legally binding. They’re recommendations.

7. So what impact does it have?

Three things.

First, it shapes what countries believe the law requires. In international law, when enough states believe something is legally obligatory and act accordingly, it can harden into binding custom over time. This resolution pushes that process forward.

Second, it raises the political cost of saying no: any state now entering reparations talks does so against a UN-endorsed baseline, which strengthens the hand of countries making claims.

Third, it gives bodies like the African Union and Caribbean Community (who backed the resolution) an official stamp of legitimacy. They can negotiate reparations collectively as a bloc, directly with European states, rather than each country having to make its own individual claim and getting bogged down in legal technicalities.

8. What happens next?

Nobody is rushing to court! The legal questions are just too messy. Who pays what? How do you calculate it? Can you even apply today’s laws to things that weren’t illegal at the time? What about African states that were themselves involved in the slave trade? What about countries that no longer exist? Which court could take on such a case anyway? These are genuinely hard problems with no clear-cut answer.

What’s more likely is movement on returning stolen cultural artefacts like art, manuscripts, historical objects. The resolution explicitly calls for this and it’s happened recently (e.g., the Benin bronzes, France returning artefacts to Mali). Expect this to be where the real action is in the near term.

Leave a comment

If you found this interesting, share it with someone who might find it interesting too!

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• Has the U.S. really “Withdrawn” from 66 International Organisations? A 2-Minute International Law Explainer

• Four Ways the Next UN Secretary-General Could Actually Strengthen International Law (in 2 minutes)

Share