Subscribe now

You’ve probably heard that the Democrats captured Congress in the U.S. midterm elections.

Congress is the U.S.’s parliament: it makes federal laws (applied across the country) and controls federal spending.

It has two chambers: the House of Representatives (435 members; each representing a local district, i.e. a slice of a state, and bigger states get more seats) and the Senate (100 senators; two per state).

In the midterms, all 435 House seats were up, plus 35 Senate seats. The new Congress takes over 3 January 2027.

With Democrats now in the majority, you’re probably wondering what this means for the rest of the world.

Let’s get into it.

1. Iran

When the U.S. unlawfully attacked Iran on 28 February, Congress had not approved.

After several failed attempts, Congress passed a war powers resolution in June 2026 telling Trump to stop military action, but the White House dismissed it.

Money is Congress’ stronger weapon. Trump can keep spending money already allocated for military operations, but Democrats could refuse to approve new funding.

2. Tariffs

The Democrats’ win doesn’t remove any of Trump’s tariffs (illegal under international law).

They’re based on older laws where Congress handed tariff powers to the President.

But Congress can pass new laws that narrow Trump’s powers to issue tariffs, or that say tariffs need Congress’s approval first.

The catch is that Trump can veto (block) any new bill. Congress can only override a veto if two-thirds of both chambers vote for it. So this can only happen if a good number of Republicans join in, too.

Share

3. Russia/Ukraine

In September, Congress passed tough new sanctions on Russia with strong support from both parties. The sanctions respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a clear violation of international law.

But the law included a waiver clause (sec. 115), and not long after signing it, Trump used that clause to waive most of the new measures.

Separately, he made a deal with Putin to import Russian diesel, suspending US sanctions on it until April 2027.

Congress can now try to remove the waiver for sanctions, and block the diesel deal.

But as with tariffs, any new law needs Trump’s signature. If he vetoes it, Congress needs two-thirds of both chambers to override, which means Republicans also need to agree.

4. Israel/Palestine

Congress controls the money and can cut how much aid Israel gets going forward.

On election day, Trump said the US would stop giving Israel about $4 billion a year in aid from 2027.

He said this was partly to remove a “bad talking point” Democrats were using against Republicans. But since Congress controls this money, he can’t cut aid on his own.

Congress could also try to block specific weapons sales – but this needs a law, which Trump could veto (though two-thirds of both chambers can override).

It could also look into how the Biden and Trump administrations were involved in Israel’s campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, including the use of U.S. weapons.

But none of this is guaranteed, as Democrats have been split on Israel for some time.

Basically, a new Congress can’t immediately override Trump on foreign policy, but can make his life very difficult by holding back on money, investigating, and building alliances with Republicans to eventually pass new laws. Whether that’s enough will become clear over the next two years.

Leave a comment

Share

Hundreds of thousands have taken the streets of France over poor school conditions, inequality, high living costs and underfunded public services.

Thousands have been arrested and there has been reported violence by both protesters and police.

Here are your international law questions answered.

Subscribe now

1. Is peaceful protest allowed under international law?

Yes.

Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protect everyone’s right to peaceful assembly, which includes protest.

France is a party to both treaties.

2. Can protests be restricted by the French government in any way?

Yes.

Restrictions must have a basis in French law and be ‘necessary in a democratic society’, for reasons like national security, public safety, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.

3. Are protesters allowed to be violent?

No.

In 2020, the UN Human Rights Committee (the body of experts that monitors the ICCPR) published non-binding guidance on how to understand the right to peaceful assembly.

It clarified that violent protest is not protected. Protesters can’t say “This is our human right!” if they’re being violent.

It also said if some marchers are peaceful but other violent groups operate alongside them (as is reported in France), the peaceful protester keep their right to protest but the violent ones don’t. In other words, peacefulness is judged person by person, not by the whole crowd.

Violent protesters do keep their other rights, though, such as the right not to be mistreated.

4. So the police can be violent in response?

No.

According to the UN Human Rights Committee’s 2020 guidance, the police must first try to calm things down, try peaceful methods first and give a warning before they use any force.

When they do use force, it must have a legal basis, be truly needed, not go further than the situation requires, be used with care and must not target certain groups unfairly.

The police may only use as little force as needed and once the danger is over, the force must stop.

Force must be aimed at the people who are being violent, or threatening to be. People who are just refusing to move should not be hurt.

They also can’t use any weapons they want: tear gas and water cannons are a last resort, and weapons like grenades must first be tested by independent experts.

Also, arresting large crowds without any distinction is unlawful. There must be a reason for each individual arrest. But thousands have been arrested in France these past few weeks: was each arrest based on what that person actually did?

Share

5. Hasn’t France been down this road before?

Oh yes, my friends.

In 2024, during its regular review of France’s human rights record, the UN Human Rights Committee raised concerns that look a lot like what we’re seeing today.

It was concerned about reports that French police were stopping and arresting protesters for no good reason (sometimes for just being near a protest).

It was worried police were using questionable weapons in ways the rules don’t allow, and badly hurting people.

It also asked France to rethink about letting police use grenades at all.

… But here we are.

6. So what should the French government do now?

It has opened dozens of investigations into alleged police violence.

That’s what the 2020 guidance requires: investigations must be effective, impartial and timely.

7. If someone was unlawfully arrested or hurt, can they do anything about it?

Yes.

First, they must use the French system: complaints and the French courts.

If that fails, they can complain to the UN Human Rights Committee or take France to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

They must pick one: Neither body will look at a case that has already gone to the other.

The whole thing can take years… but in my view, much better than nothing.

Leave a comment

Share

Source: © Thomas Wolf, www.foto-tw.de (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE)

If you’re late to the party, the U.S. launched a campaign to dismantle the ICC in July 2026, and this month vowed to do it “brick by brick”.

The latest: a new round of (harsh) sanctions on the ICC.

1. What will the sanctions do?

Previous ones targeted specific ICC judges. These ones blacklist and sanction the Court as a whole.

So any money or property on U.S. soil belonging to the ICC as an organisation is frozen.

The ICC also loses access to ordinary American services related to money (think banks/credit cards and any dollar payments) and insurance, travel, equipment (like U.S. airlines, insurers, booking platforms).

These sanctions have taken effect immediately, but there’s a six-month window running until 7 April 2027 for member states to negotiate a solution to US concerns.

2. Why is the U.S. doing this?

Because the ICC can prosecute U.S. nationals suspected of committing international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide), despite the U.S. not being a party to it.

It also takes issue that the ICC issued an arrest warrant on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that investigations concerning Israel are ongoing.

This hostility goes back decades to the 2002 Hague Invasion Act: a U.S. law saying it will take measures (like invade The Hague) if Americans or its allies (including Israel) are arrested, detained, prosecuted or jailed by or on behalf of the ICC (see section 15(3)).

3. Can the ICC actually prosecute U.S. and Israeli nationals, though?

Yes.

Every country can prosecute crimes committed on its own territory, whoever commits them. If an American commits a crime in France, France can try them. The U.S. does the same to foreigners everyday.

Every country can also choose to share some of its sovereignty with an international court. States do this all the time.

So when a country joins the ICC, it agrees that the ICC can deal with the biggest crimes committed on its soil, instead of (or alongside) its own courts.

That’s Article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute.

So the ICC isn’t claiming any new power over Americans. It’s using a power those countries’ own courts would have anyway.

That’s why the ICC opened investigations into:

• U.S. nationals in Afghanistan,

• Israeli nationals in Palestine,

• Russian nationals in Ukraine

The U.S., Israel and Russia are not parties to the ICC, but it doesn’t matter, because the crimes were allegedly committed on the territory of states that did sign up to the ICC.

This has always been an ICC rule agreed to almost three decades ago, and today accepted by 125 states.

It’s not ‘rogue targeting’ of the U.S. as the State Department portrays it. Rather, the U.S. is punishing the ICC for… well… doing its job.

4. Has the U.S. campaign been working?

Somewhat.

ICC judges and officials had already been heavily sanctioned, struggling to do normal every day things like use credit cards, use Amazon, Uber or Microsoft.

Beyond sanctions, the U.S. plan involves pressuring states to withdraw from the ICC.

Chad and Venezuela announced their withdrawal shortly after the U.S. campaign launch.

To top it off, ICC Member States voted to remove its Prosecutor following a controversial sexual misconduct scandal. This weakens an already-fragile Court, currently with no elected Prosecutor.

But it is still standing.

5. Is the U.S. the only country against the ICC?

No.

Russia convicted former ICC Prosecutor Khan and eight ICC judges in their absence, with sentences of 3.5 to 15 years. It now wants their arrest. (The ICC issued an arrest warrant on Vladimir Putin.)

Israel has (obviously) been vocal against the ICC.

Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announced their departure in 2025, calling the ICC neo-colonialist (oh, and there’s an ongoing investigation in Mali).

Basically, everybody’s fine with international criminal justice until it comes after them or their friends.

6. Has the ICC been fighting back?

Yes.

It has already taken measures to distance itself from U.S. service providers.

Three ICC judges sued in a U.S. federal court in Manhattan in June, over the sanctions against them personally.

ICC member states have also decided to move their annual meeting from the usual New York to The Hague (sensible!).

7. What can the EU do about this?

EU companies with U.S. exposure might get scared and refuse to work with the ICC going forward.

But the EU blocking statute forbids European companies from complying with U.S. sanctions.

E.g.: A European bank couldn’t legally drop the ICC just because Washington says so.

The EU hasn’t pulled this trigger yet, despite calls for it to do so. This would help curb the U.S.’s ambitions to weaken the ICC until it grinds to a halt.

8. What have other countries done?

Allies Australia, the UK, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands have said they “regret and strongly disagree” with U.S. measures.

9. Can anything else be done?

Yes.

First, I’m sure the ICC is scrambling to take more financial measures ahead of April 2027 (like switching entirely to banks with little U.S. exposure) and that this will be the key topic discussed at their December meeting.

Second, the Netherlands as host country of the ICC could provide it with services itself (e.g., cloud/IT hosting, staff health insurance, etc), through public bodies rather than private firms.

Third, Article 70 of the ICC’s own Statute lets it prosecute anyone who deliberately intimidates or pressures its officials to stop them doing their job properly, or who punishes them for the work they have done. (Unlikely to happen, but informing you nonetheless!)

Fourth, the General Assembly could ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion about the legality of coercive measures designed to obstruct an international judicial institution. It would be slow and not bind the U.S., but set the legal record, create pressure and give states political cover.

Fifth, the allies’ statement could be widened to African, Latin American and Asian states for more impact (and perhaps stronger wording could be considered!).

Sixth, we could speak out about it. You can start by sharing this post. 🙂

Share

Leave a comment

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

• Venezuela quit the International Criminal Court. It Won’t Save Them.

• 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 Houthis are an armed movement based in Yemen.

Their number one goal is to overthrow the Yemeni government and rule the country. To that end, there’s been a civil war since 2014.

Another key goal is to support the Palestinian cause, and defy the U.S./Israel.

They are politically aligned with Iran.

Saudi Arabia – a fierce regional rival of Iran – has been in conflict with the Houthis since 2015, mainly as it fears a Houthi-controlled Yemen would act as a satellite state for Iran.

Subscribe now

Yemen’s civil war had been largely frozen since a 2022 truce.

But in September 2026, the Houthis seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coast, including islands inside the Bab el-Mandeb strait.

This triggered missile exchanges with Saudi Arabia that reached Riyadh and displaced some 100,000 people.

Here are your international law questions answered.

1. The Houthis declared a maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia. Is that legal?

No.

The rules for war at sea (including blockades) were built for wars between states, so it’s unclear whether it would apply to an armed group like the Houthis to begin with.

Even if we said it did, a legally-run blockade must also be consistently enforced to all ships – but the Houthis are only blocking Saudi-linked ships, letting others pass.

And if you still really want to insist this was a lawful blockade, this still doesn’t mean the Houthis can attack Saudi ships (as they have been). In a lawful blockade, ships are captured and only attacked after warning if they resist capture (Article 98). But the Houthis didn’t try to capture any ships at all.

Share

2. Can anyone legally close the Bab el-Mandeb strait?

No.

Under the law of the sea, ships enjoy a right to pass in transit (Article 38), and that right can’t be suspended – even by the coastal state (and the Houthis aren’t even the recognised government of that coastal state!).

Even in wartime, straits are to be kept open to neutral shipping.

(Yemen has now taken the strait back from the Houthis, by the way.)

3. Do the Houthis have to follow any laws on war?

Yes.

Basic rules: treat civilians humanely, separate them from combatants and take precautions, attack if necessary and proportionately.

4. So is firing missiles at cities (like Riyadh) ever allowed?

Only at military targets, and only with weapons that can actually be aimed at them.

Yet civilians have been wounded and killed.

5. What about bridges, airports and refineries?

These are “dual-use”: civilians rely on them, but armies can too.

Such sites can only be hit if they are military objectives, and the expected civilian harm must not be excessive.

Saudi jets struck Al-Dalil Bridge in Ibb on 26 September. Houthi attacks have damaged the Jizan refinery and hit two Saudi airports.

Subscribe now

6. Can one side hit back “in retaliation”?

Not by breaking the rules.

A violation by one side never licenses one by the other.

7. Is the US responsible for strikes it helps plan?

Possibly.

Over 100 US military advisers are reportedly giving Saudi Arabia intelligence and targeting support.

States must “ensure respect” for the rules of warfare. A state that knowingly helps another break international law can share responsibility.

8. Who will investigate any of this?

Right now, no independent investigative body.

The UN’s only investigative body on Yemen was shut down in 2021, apparently after Saudi-led lobbying.

Neither Yemen nor Saudi Arabia is a party to the International Criminal Court.

Earlier 2024 attacks on ships flagged to ICC member states (e.g., Belize, Liberia), could fall within its reach, though.

Domestic courts in other countries, hearing challenges to arms sales to Saudi Arabia (e.g., UK, France, Belgium), are where most of the action has been.

A regional player like Oman could mediate, but a peace deal could bring amnesties as easily as accountability.

Stay tuned.

Leave a comment

Share

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

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

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

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

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

Trump has been gunning for sovereignty over Greenland since his first term of U.S. presidency.

Now, he made a deal with Denmark and Greenland.

The big surprise to me is that it is largely respectful of international law.

No plans to annex or take Greenland from Denmark. No ignoring the people of Greenland. It doesn’t even seem like Denmark/Greenland were coerced into the terms of this agreement; they’re happy with the outcome.

Here’s a quick take on what it says and means.

Subscribe now

1. What does it say?

Basically: the U.S. gets more military room and can keep rivals (Russia, China) out, Denmark keeps sovereignty, and Greenland keeps its right to decide its own future.

The U.S. currently has one active military base in Greenland. This 2026 agreement allows it to expand it, plus build two more.

It can ask for even more than this, but Denmark and Greenland must agree.

U.S. planes can fly over and land anywhere on Greenland, and U.S. ships and submarines through its waters.

Countries outside NATO (China and Russia) can’t put military bases in Greenland or invest in sensitive areas (e.g., mining, ports, power).

The U.S. should give work building and running the bases to Greenlandic companies where possible, and respect local life (e.g., hunting, fishing).

Plus, the deal lasts indefinitely. If Greenland becomes independent one day, Denmark and Greenland promise that it will stay in NATO and keep this deal.

Share

2. What are the differences with the 1951 Agreement?

This deal is very similar to the 1951 Defense Agreement the U.S. and Denmark already had. It even says it’s amending and adding to it.

What has stayed the same:

• The U.S. bases only exist where both sides agree

• The U.S. has freedom of movement by land, sea and air

• Denmark keeps sovereignty over Greenland, and

• Any changes happen by mutual consent.

What this agreement has changed:

• It’s permanent

• It adds two U.S. bases

• It bans military bases of non-NATO states (Russia/China)

• It involves Greenland as a party and acknowledges the Greenlandic peoples’ rights.

3. Trump said the deal “gives the U.S. permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland”. Is that true?

Sort of.

“Permanent” is accurate.

“Control over security” overstates it. It can stop China/Russia from setting up a base. But security is shared, the U.S. needs Denmark and Greenland’s consent to do anything, and Greenland still belongs to Denmark.

Also, “all other needs” don’t seem to be covered in the agreement.

Subscribe now

4. But there’s one concern…

It’s great that Greenlanders and their rights are acknowledged.

But I’m slightly concerned about their right to self-determination.

That’s essentially the right of a people to decide their own future.

The agreement does recognise it. But…

First, the U.S. gets a consultative role over who can extract Greenland’s resources. Greenland agreed to this, but technically the right to self-determination means Greenlanders have permanent control over their own resources without anyone else interfering.

Second, they’ve already agreed that if Greenland becomes independent one day, it will join NATO and this deal will continue to exist.

But isn’t the whole point of self-determination giving the people the right to decide if they want to be part of NATO or not?

If they become independent and change their mind at that point, they should be free to do so.

Technically, a new state (i.e. a future independent State of Greenland) isn’t bound by treaties made while it was part of another state. Some treaties do carry over, but foreign military base agreements are specifically excluded (Article 12(3)).

But Denmark and Greenland have promised to make it happen, so staying in the deal could become a condition of independence one day.

That might or might not be a problem the day Greenland takes the leap towards independence — only time will tell.

Leave a comment

Share

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

• What happens if Trump invades Greenland? (In 2 minutes)

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

• Can Trump Break a Trade Deal? Inside the US-Canada Tariff War

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

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

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

• The UN General Assembly is the UN’s ‘parliament’.

Its 193 member states, with one vote each, decide on everything the organisation does.

It meets every September at the UN headquarters in New York.

This year, that location is generating some legal controversy.

Subscribe now

1. Netanyahu is speaking despite an arrest warrant

Vladimir Putin hasn’t attended the UN General Assembly since 2015.

Certainly not since the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant on him.

Netanyahu also has an arrest warrant. The ICC has clarified that immunity doesn’t apply to either of them.

Yet Netanyahu will be speaking this week.

This puts him in the same building as the 125 ICC member states who are required to arrest him if he enters their territory.

They won’t act (as they’re not in their territory).

The US has no obligation to act, as not an ICC member.

And it won’t, despite Mamdani’s position.

The diplomatic and legal awkwardness of this situation is difficult to ignore.

Share

2. Palestine can’t get in

The US is legally obligated to allow UN representatives and observer entities to enter the US for UN meetings.

That’s under Article IV of the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement between the US and the UN.

But Palestine has been denied entry by the US.

This has happened before: the US refused to grant Yasser Arafat a visa to address the UNGA in 1988.

In response, the UN moved the entire session to Geneva, Switzerland.

It’s not clear why this hasn’t happened this time round.

Subscribe now

3. Trump will address an organisation whose rules he is actively breaking

Every UN member state has ratified the UN Charter.

Article 2(4) is a core part of it. It prohibits the use of force against another state.

The US strikes on Iran (and many other places) raises questions under this provision.

The US has also withdrawn support from multiple UN funds and programmes.

It is also launching a campaign to dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Trump will address the General Assembly this week, amidst all of that.

Awkward.

Share

So: should the UN General Assembly move?

Nothing in the UN Charter legally requires the UN General Assembly to hold its meetings at its headquarters to be the US.

Nothing even requires the UN headquarters to be in New York; The Headquarters Agreement can — in theory — be terminated.

Geneva is an obvious alternative: it’s the European UN headquarters, hosts lots of UN agencies, has done this before and is currently moving to enshrine its neutrality even more in law.

Legally feasible, but politically likely to face a lot of resistance.

What do you think?

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• Can Mamdani Arrest Netanyahu in New York? (In 2 minutes)

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

• 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)

Trump just imposed 50% tariffs on ~$20 billion in Canadian goods (e.g.: cars, alcohol, dairy).

He started a trade war in early 2025, but this is the biggest tariff hike yet.

Why? He cites Section 338 of a U.S. law called the 1930 Tariff Act.

Section 338 says the President can impose tariffs of up to 50%, when a foreign country discriminates against U.S. commerce.

Trump argues Canada has been discriminating against U.S. products like cars, alcohol and dairy.

Subscribe now

1. This move goes against the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement

This move violates the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (USMCA) that has existed since 2020.

It has replaced the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between them – which you may have heard of.

Like NAFTA, its goal is to make trade between these countries easier.

So through the USMCA, the U.S. and Canada agreed to specific tariff rates they’d stick to, for goods covered by the agreement.

Under its Article 2.4, Canada and the U.S. promised each other they wouldn’t raise tariffs above their agreed rates for those goods.

Trump’s 50% extra tariffs on Canadian goods violate this because those goods qualify under the USMCA.

It’s like promising your friend a price for something and then secretly charging extra anyway.

Share

2. It also goes against global trade rules

Both the U.S. and Canada are part of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Even though the USMCA is more specific, they also have to respect the general WTO rules.

Under the WTO, the U.S. committed to specific tariffs and its recent decision goes beyond (way!) those commitments.

Also, a core WTO rule is that members must treat all their trading partners equally.

Any perk given to one country is given to all countries in the trading club, so that no one is unfairly disadvantaged.

The U.S. move is quite the opposite of a perk and certainly disadvantages Canada compared to others.

Subscribe now

3. What can Canada do?

Canada has retaliated with its own tariffs – yup, the war is on.

Canada’s legal leverage is strong here, as the U.S. move is illegal.

It goes against the USMCA and WTO rules, and you can’t use your domestic law as an excuse to violate international law.

But its political leverage is more complicated – especially as Trump is also using tariffs for bigger power grabs (e.g.: forcing Canada to give the U.S. control over its critical minerals, investments and future trade negotiations).

Still, Canada can…

Act under the USMCA:

The USMCA was reviewed in July 2026 and Trump said he didn’t want to move forward with it in its current form.

Unless Canada (and Mexico) can renegotiate terms to Trump’s satisfaction, it’s set to expire in 2036.

But it actually offers a dispute resolution system that Canada can still use today.

When countries disagree on something, they first try to resolve it through negotiation in 30 days.

Share

If that fails, either the U.S. or Canada can request a panel. That’s a group of independent trade experts to decide if a measure violates USMCA – and possibly other trade disagreements between them.

The system is there: they should use it.

Act under the WTO:

Canada can also file a complaint to the WTO – it has in the past, and won.

Though the U.S. ignored this and imposed even more tariffs, I think it’s still worth doing it again to have a written record of illegal treatment and create (more) pressure.

Bonus points if Canada gets other countries to file fresh complaints, to amp up global pressure.

Diversify trade away from the U.S.?

Canada is the U.S.’s number one customer; it buys more from U.S. businesses than the UK, France, China and Japan combined!

So that would be a tough transition.

But Carney has said he’s working on it… and he has every reason to work faster!

Leave a comment

If you enjoyed this post, you might also enjoy:

• Trump’s Tariffs under International Law: A 2-Minute Breakdown

Share

Source: UK, France, Germany, Italy and Canada condemn Israel's West Bank settlement project - BBC News

Israel opened bidding for 1,234 new homes in a place called E1: a strip of land that cuts the West Bank in half and blocks Palestinians’ access to East Jerusalem (their designated capital). This would make a unified Palestinian state pretty much impossible.

The deadline for bids is 19 October 2026, right before the Israeli election on 27 October. That way, the project is locked in before a potential new government can reverse them.

But the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an opinion in 2024 on exactly this situation. It spelled out (in meticulous detail, might I add) how and why settlement expansion like E1 breaks international law.

Let’s get into it.

Subscribe now

1. It violates the ban on transferring your own civilians into occupied territory

The ICJ reminded us that the Fourth Geneva Convention (which Israel is party to) has one clear rule:

An occupying power (Israel) can’t transfer parts of its population in the territory it occupies (which includes the West Bank).

So any measures to organise or encourage civilian transfer, like this one, are illegal.

2. It treats occupation as permanent when it has to be temporary

The ICJ clarified that occupation is supposed to be a temporary response to military necessity. It doesn’t give the occupying power the right to claim the land forever.

E1 is designed to be permanent. When you build things that can’t be undone, you’ve broken that rule.

3. It’s illegal annexation

The ICJ said Israel has been carrying out annexation.

That’s when you either initially ‘house-sit’ but then declare the house your own (de jure annexation), or act like it’s your own by remodeling, moving the family in, changing the locks (de facto annexation).

Building settlements like E1 is an example of annexation, which is illegal.

Share

4. It fragments Palestinian land into enclaves

The ICJ said Israel’s settlement policy “fragmented the West Bank and severed East Jerusalem from it” by “encircling Palestinian communities in enclaves”.

E1 seals this.

Cut up Palestinian territory and you are violating the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.

In other words, you’re taking away their ability to have their own independent state and control their own future.

5. It creates a coercive environment that forces Palestinians to leave

The ICJ said Israel’s settlement policy creates conditions where Palestinians have “little choice but to leave their area of residence”.

Israel doesn’t have to physically expel Palestinians. It just has to make staying impossible.

In the areas around E1, Palestinians lose access to land, water, and movement. The only rational option becomes… leaving.

6. It locks in territorial control before anyone can stop it

The ICJ warned about making settlements pretty much impossible to reverse.

And here, they’re locking E1 in.

There’s a reason the deadline is 19 October and Israeli elections 27 October.

Once bids are in and tenders are issued cancelling them becomes tough. A new government would face enormous pressure not to disrupt contracts, construction and investment. So the settlements become a fait accompli.

Subscribe now

7. It segregates settlers and Palestinians

The ICJ said the separation between settlers and Palestinian communities is either racial segregation, or apartheid, or both.

E1 is part of that. It restricts Palestinian access and builds physical separation.

So what now?

Look, this opinion wasn’t a close call. On whether Israel should stop building settlements and evacuate settlers, 14 out of 15 voted yes.

Even if you have historical ties to land, you can’t use occupation and settlements to prove it.

Even if it’s “just an advisory opinion”, it carries real weight and lays out what states are obligated to do.

And finally, Western states have condemned E1… but condemnation without action is just words.

The ICJ opinion gives a clear blueprint of do’s and don’ts when it comes to Israel’s occupation.

Do’s: Block trade and investment that benefits the occupation, make it clear you don’t recognize Israeli territorial claims over occupied land, work to end obstacles to Palestinian freedom, etc.

Don’ts: No trade deals, no acting like the Israeli occupation is legal in diplomatic dealings, no aid/assistance that maintains the occupation, no business with Israeli companies profiting from settlements, etc.

They have options! The question is whether they’ll actually use them.

Leave a comment

Share

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

• Can Mamdani Arrest Netanyahu in New York? (In 2 minutes)

• 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

7 questions:

1. Why does every Iran ceasefire seem to fall apart within weeks?

Yusra:

Under international law, a ceasefire is only as strong as the instrument creating it, and the deals haven’t met the standard:

An earlier version had no agreed written text, and the latest version left the hardest legal questions (Hormuz, enrichment) unresolved.

To top it off, no enforcement: the latest deal was going to set up a system to ensure everyone follows the deal but never did.

Pascal:

A ceasefire agreement is not a peace treaty and even those are only as strong as the will of the states that enter them.

The UN Charter is in effect a global peace treaty that mandates peace on all. The USA and Israel have already broken the Charter when attacking Iran in the first place, as they have done in other armed conflicts, and they continue using diplomacy as a ruse to lull the other side into complacency.

Hence, their ceasefire agreements keep breaking because they want to break them.

2. Can Iran close the Strait of Hormuz and get away with it?

Pascal:

Yes.

The Strait of Hormuz is only around 33-39 kilometres wide at its most narrow point. This is well in range of the missiles and drones Iran produces.

Hence, Iran has the physical capability to damage or sink any ship that wants to go through, which gives it effective leverage if it chooses to do so.

Until February 2026, they did not do that, now since the war started, they do to gain leverage over the USA.

Yusra:

The Strait of Hormuz should be freely open to all ships under international law.

But Iran rejects the specific rules that say so, insisting a different legal framework applies that gives it far more power to restrict who passes through.

3. Why hasn’t international pressure worked?

Pascal:

The greatest pressure on a state is war.

And the USA and Iran are already in a war, so there is little pressure from the outside that could add to this and hurt them even more than the war itself does.

Outside pressure is structurally less important than prevailing in the war. Hence, the parties react much less to foreign pressure than to the hurt each one inflicts on the other.

Yusra:

International pressure got the parties to the table, but not through the hardest conversations on outstanding legal points in the ceasefire deal.

What’s missing is a combination of sustained pressure, credible consequences for breach, and political incentives strong enough to make compliance more attractive than defection.

None of those conditions currently exist for Iran or the United States.

4. Who is actually benefiting from the cycle continuing?

Pascal:

In the short run, really only weapons manufacturers that get more orders for their slaughter devices. In the long run, it will all depend on how this ends.

At the moment it looks as if Iran will prevail and maybe even manage to kick out the US from the region, forcing it to withdraw its troops from the Gulf and maybe even Jordan and Iraq, in which case the big winner would be Iran.

But war is hard to predict. Things might happen and reverse that assessment.

5. Will this cycle ever break... and what would it take?

Pascal:

Interestingly enough, this war is demonstrating that the US stockpile of weapons is not infinite.

Washington is running out of weaponry and already has to reshuffle its global allocation, moving Himars and Patriot systems from East Asia to West Asia and restrict what it sells to Europe.

So for the first time in a long time, we are near the point where the US might be forced to stop an aggression because it is running out of implements of war.

6. Is there a deal that would actually hold?

Yusra:

Possibly: A legally binding agreement, involving all relevant stakeholders, covering Hormuz, detailed nuclear commitments, and regional security arrangements simultaneously.

Essentially, an updated and slightly more comprehensive 2015 Obama deal (JCPOA). It wasn’t perfect, but probably the best we had.

Pascal:

Yes, I agree.

It would need to be a treaty along the lines of the JCPOA but coupled with security guarantees to Iran in the form of a mandatory troop withdrawal of the US from the region and possibly a neutral status for the Gulf States.

That way Iran will be secure from future US attacks and the region will be secure from a latent Iranian nuclear threat and you could have an equilibrium setting in.

7. Can anyone be held accountable?

Yusra:

Potentially, but the paths are long and the outcomes uncertain. If Iran joined the International Criminal Court, the ICC could investigate conduct during the strikes, but it would investigate possible Iranian violations too (not just American or Israeli ones).

And any ICC involvement would trigger further fury from an administration already actively campaigning to dismantle the Court.

Accountability in international law moves slowly, requires state cooperation, and almost never produces consequences at the speed the crisis demands.

Hit the like button if you enjoyed this, and share with someone who might enjoy it too!

Leave a comment

Share

Check out Pascal’s popular YouTube channel (Neutrality Studies) here.

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

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

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

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

• 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

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)