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

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

Jeffrey Epstein was a financier accused of running a large sex-trafficking operation involving underage girls.

The “Epstein files” are documents released publicly to increase transparency about his crimes.

There have been a few rounds of releases, but the biggest one (3 million pages!) dropped on 30 January 2026.

Subscribe now

Here are 5 ways they intersect to international law:

1. Countries must investigate and take legal action against trafficking and sexual exploitation

185 countries (including the U.S.) are party to the Trafficking Protocol, requiring countries to identify, report, investigate, and prosecute trafficking.

196 countries are party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, explicitly banning sexual exploitation of minors. The U.S. signed the treaty but hasn’t formally approved (ratified) it. Still, the ban on child sexual exploitation is considered customary international law — basically, a rule that all countries follow because the world treats it as legally required. So the U.S. is expected to comply, treaty or not.

Epstein’s network allegedly involved victims from multiple countries, making it a cross-border trafficking issue.

Some countries (e.g., Lithuania, the UK) have opened investigations, but many more should follow!

Share

2. Heads of state, senior officials and royals can be prosecuted

The files implicate some powerful people in personal dealings with Epstein, including a Slovak Prime Minister’s national security advisor, senior officials like Joanna Rubinstein, politicians, and royals like (former) Prince Andrew and a Princess of Norway.

In case you’re wondering… all of them can be prosecuted in their own country for any criminal personal dealings, whether still in office or after resigning.

(Except Norwegian royals, who are generally protected from prosecution unless the King expressly waives their immunity.)

Reacting to the files, the UN said no one is above the law. So… we’re waiting 😄

Here’s a handy visual Al Jazeera made - lots of resignations, but few arrests… for now:

Subscribe now

3. The International Criminal Court (ICC) probably won’t step in

As UN experts have explained, it’s possible that we’re dealing with some crimes against humanity: basically large-scale, organised attacks or abuse against civilians.

Under international law, that’s punished by the ICC.

But it likely won’t get involved for two reasons.

First, the ICC can’t prosecute crimes on U.S. soil or by U.S. nationals because the U.S. is not a party to the ICC.

Second, the ICC is a court of last resort. It only steps in if national courts can’t or won’t act. But the U.S. already prosecuted Epstein and sidekick Ghislaine Maxwell.

That said, if it turns out that any of these crimes happened in another country that is part of the ICC, the Court might be able to step in — as long as that country hasn’t already dealt with it.

Even if the ICC doesn’t get involved, domestic courts in many countries can still investigate and prosecute anyone responsible for these crimes (and should!).

Leave a comment

4. Epstein’s attempt to access Libyan assets likely broke international law

Trafficking isn’t the only issue here.

The files suggest Epstein’s associates tried to get their hands on Libya’s frozen state assets, possibly with help from former British and Israeli intelligence officials.

Under international law, countries control their own assets, and interfering without permission is a serious violation of sovereignty.

After former Libyan leader Gaddafi was overthrown, the UN Security Council told all countries to freeze certain Libyan state funds and assets.

This meant even Libya couldn’t access that money abroad unless the UN specifically allowed it.

Unless Epstein got explicit authorisation from the Libyan government or UN Security Council, trying to access those funds would almost certainly have been illegal.

Share

5. Bill Gates and pandemic preparedness

Some emails between Bill Gates and Epstein suggest they were testing pandemic preparedness years before COVID-19.

They appear to have been exploring ways to simulate and plan for potential outbreaks.

On its face, there’s nothing illegal here. Planning or testing pandemic responses is considered good practice and aligns with World Health Organization guidance.

Legal concerns would only come into play if it could be shown that they somehow caused or triggered COVID‑19, but the emails alone don’t suggest that (though conspiracy theorists on the internet would disagree!).

Anything I missed? Let me know in the comments! And feel free to share if you enjoyed this post!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

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

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

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

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

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

Share

With over 135 million viewers, Bad Bunny’s 2026 Super Bowl halftime show became the most-watched halftime performance of all time!

Here are 3 ways it reflected international law:

Subscribe now

1. Puerto Rico has the right to self-determination

At its core, the performance was about Puerto Rico’s right to decide its own future.

Self-determination is one of the most important rights in international law. It means a people can choose their political status and control their own destiny.

Puerto Rico’s history makes this complicated: It was a Spanish colony for over 400 years.

In 1898, the U.S. took control after the Spanish–American War, and Puerto Rico has remained a U.S. territory ever since.

Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens… but they can’t vote for the U.S. president. They have their own government… but the U.S. Congress has the final say.

Basically, they’re free… but not fully free.

Share

Puerto Rico has had independence movements against Spain and then the U.S. for over 150 years!

Self-determination protects their right to choose what they want for themselves.

Bad Bunny put that reality on the world’s biggest stage.

2. Cultural expression is a human right

Bad Bunny performed (almost) entirely in Spanish.

He didn’t switch to English to be understood. The world adapted to him.

International human rights law protects cultural expression.

It even recognizes language as a core part of cultural diversity.

Bad Bunny asserted those rights.

Subscribe now

3. Migrants have rights and dignity under international law

At the end of the performance, he said “God Bless America” and named countries across North, Central, and South America while dancers carried their flags.

It was a reminder that “America” is bigger than one country: it’s a region, a people, a shared history.

This was a (subtle?) nod to migration — one of the most politically charged issues in the U.S. right now (!).

International law is clear: every person is born free and equal in dignity and rights.

No one can be discriminated against based on national origin.

Migrant workers have rights. Their dignity doesn’t depend on citizenship status.

Bad Bunny’s message: borders don’t define human worth.

Share this with someone who likes Bad Bunny, international law… or both!

Share

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Warning: This post is light in tone, not light on law.

‘Tis the season! But it turns out Santa Claus might have a few legal headaches if he really existed.

Here are five ways Santa might run into international law trouble.

Subscribe now

1. Flying across countries’ airspace without permission

Under international law, every country has complete control over the airspace above its territory.

Commercial planes can fly across multiple countries because those states give prior consent through international agreements.

Santa’s sleigh, however, is not a registered aircraft, and there’s no evidence he’s ever asked for permission.

He might argue that states have tacitly agreed. After all, he’s been delivering presents for centuries and no one has complained!

But whether silence counts as consent is up for debate… Santa is certainly pushing the limits of international law.

Share

2. Living at the North Pole

Santa is often said to live at the North Pole, located in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.

Most of the Arctic is part of one of five countries: Canada, Russia, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, or the United States.

Santa could live legally if he settled within one of those countries’ Arctic zones, in which case he would simply follow their domestic laws.

But the problem is that the North Pole lies outside any country’s zone – it sits on drifting sea ice! No country claims it, so Santa wouldn’t fall under any single country’s laws.

Some international rules might apply, but there’s no law banning life at the North Pole.

Santa could be living there legally… or operating in a (festive) legal grey area.

Perhaps one for the Arctic Council to decide?

3. Overworking the elves

Santa’s elves work around the clock.

That raises some obvious questions about workers’ rights.

There are international rules that protect workers, like International Labour Organization Convention No. 1 (1919), which says industrial workers shouldn’t have to work more than 8 hours a day or 48 hours a week.

Human rights treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prohibit slave labour.

The problem is, these rules are meant to apply within actual countries, and the North Pole isn’t part of any country.

So technically, Santa’s elves might not be covered by these protections.

Unless the workshop is legally tied to a country (for example, if Santa’s business were registered somewhere), the elves could be working in a legal grey area.

Share

4. Potentially causing climate impacts

Santa visits every country in the world in a single night. That’s a lot of travel!

It’s unclear whether Santa’s sleigh emits greenhouse gases, or whether his reindeer produce methane.

If they do, Santa’s overnight operation would clearly have climate impacts.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement aim to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions.

In its 2025 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice confirmed that climate change is a matter of global concern.

But these obligations primarily bind countries, not private individuals like Santa…

So technically, he might be off the hook? What do you think?

Leave a comment

5. Skipping immigration border control

Santa enters countless countries without visas, passports, or border checks.

Under international law, countries control who may enter their territory.

Only certain categories of persons, such as diplomats, benefit from special entry privileges.

Santa is not a diplomat, nor does he represent any country.

So, he violates immigration rules everywhere he goes!

What other international law issues can you think of? Let me know, and until then, bah humbug (legally speaking)!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Slovenia have all announced they will boycott next year’s Eurovision Song Contest because Israel will be allowed to participate.

These countries say Israel has violated international law in Gaza, especially since 7 October 2023.

What does international law actually have to do with Eurovision?

Let’s lay out the debate for your next dinner-time conversation.

Share

1. Does international law have a place at Eurovision?

No:

Some people (e.g., your cousin Marge) will say that Eurovision isn’t officially tied to international law in any real, structural way.

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.

Yes:

Others will argue (whilst helping themselves to more salad) 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! (Russia has since set up its own song contest called Intervision though, so there.)

Subscribe now

2. Do countries have a duty under international law 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? (Yes, we’re adding spice to this conversation!)

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.

It wouldn’t require banning Israel from Eurovision, since the contest isn’t governed by international law (as Marge said earlier) 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

3. Discuss!

If you’re still discussing by the time you get to dessert (or tea, my personal preference), here’s a takeaway: 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.

International cultural bodies haven’t always shied away from this: The Olympics banned South Africa for apartheid and Afghanistan over women’s rights violations.

Some of them don’t want to shy away: FIFA just gave Trump an inaugural peace prize!

Whatever decisions are (or are not) made, the surrounding controversy inescapable.

The EBU decided to exclude Russia from Eurovision to avoid “bringing the competition into disrepute” – in other words, to avoid making the contest look bad, unethical, or untrustworthy to the public.

But has its decision not to exclude Israel had the same effect? What do you think? Let me know in the comments!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

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

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

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

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

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