SAIL: Conflicts & Crises

Do Mass Shootings Break International Law? (In 2 minutes)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:01:39 GMT

I was heartbroken to hear about the mass shooting during a Hanukkah celebration on 14 December in Bondi Beach, Sydney, Australia.

Such shootings are common in the U.S., too, which has experienced 393 so far in 2025 alone, according to one report.

So what does international law have to do with it?

Subscribe now

Countries don’t have to ban guns

Australia has very strict gun laws, while the U.S. allows civilian gun ownership.

Under international law, there are only two main agreements that deal directly with guns: the UN Firearms Protocol and the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

These focus on controlling legal arms trade and stopping illegal manufacturing and trafficking between countries; not banning guns within a country.

So even though U.S. gun laws are very different from Australia’s, allowing civilian gun ownership isn’t illegal under international law.

But countries must protect life

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a major human rights agreement that both the U.S. and Australia have signed.

In it, countries must protect the human right to life.

The UN has clarified that this includes a duty to take reasonable steps to address gun violence.

Australia responded quickly after the Bondi incident, announcing plans for stricter gun laws almost overnight!

The U.S., however, has been far more resistant.

Even if the U.S. Constitution allows civilian gun ownership, the country still has to comply with its obligations to protect life under the ICCPR.

In 2023, the UN again warned the U.S. to do more – including expanding background checks, banning assault weapons, restricting access for high-risk individuals, and removing legal immunities for the firearms industry.

The U.S. also skipped the UN’s scheduled review of its human rights record in November 2025, where gun violence would likely have been raised again.

Given Trump’s general hostility toward international law (keeping SAIL very busy!), major changes don’t seem likely anytime soon…

When are mass shootings acts of terrorism?

Tough question!

There is no universally agreed definition of terrorism under international law.

Countries have been in deadlocked negotiations over this for decades.

The reason? Many countries argue that acts committed in the context of armed resistance or struggles for self-determination shouldn’t be labelled as terrorism, while others want a broader definition that covers all attacks on civilians.

But both Australia and the U.S. have their own national definitions of terrorism, so legal action can be taken on that basis. One of the shooters in Australia has already been charged with terrorism.

Over to you: How can we prevent mass shootings, and is international law part of the solution? Comment below.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

The Thailand-Cambodia Clashes: 3 Legal Questions the News Won’t Answer (in 1 minute)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Mon, 17 Nov 2025 10:02:22 GMT

Thailand has suspended its 28 July 2025 ceasefire agreement with Cambodia (which Trump helped negotiate). This dispute raises some important international law questions you won’t see covered in the news. Here’s what they are, and some answers.

Can Thailand suspend the deal?

Technically, yes — Thailand says Cambodia broke the ceasefire agreement, which under international law can justify suspending or ending the deal (Article 60(1)).

But there’s a catch. International law also says that if the deal includes provisions protecting people’s safety or humanitarian rights, those parts cannot be ignored, even if someone broke it (Article 60(5)). Since the ceasefire explicitly aims to keep people safe, Thailand can’t simply dismiss those protections by suspending the treaty.

So in my view, Thailand was not authorised to suspend the ceasefire deal.

Can the International Court of Justice (ICJ) solve the dispute?

It tried! Cambodia sued Thailand in 1959 over a temple on the Cambodia-Thailand border, with both countries claiming the surrounding land (yes, the story goes back decades!). The ICJ decided it belonged to Cambodia, but clashes have continued to this day.

In 2011, Cambodia asked the ICJ to clarify its decision. The ICJ repeated that the temple belongs to Cambodia and ordered Thailand to withdraw all troops from the temple and surrounding area. Clashes continued.

Cambodia isn’t giving up: it now wants a new ICJ case on nearby temples, but Thailand isn’t interested and can’t be forced to participate.

In sum: The ICJ can certainly help, if Thailand gets on board.

Can the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) solve the dispute?

Thailand and Cambodia are ASEAN members, a group committed to regional peace and respect for the rule of law.

ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) requires members (which include both countries) to resolve disputes peacefully and avoid force.

So, ASEAN can try to coax Thailand back to the ICJ, or suggest other options like arbitration (where the countries pick the decision-makers) or mediation.

Let’s see what it does!

Subscribe now

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Leave a comment

Are Trump and Putin Allowed to Restart Nuclear Testing? (In 2 minutes)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:48:03 GMT

Uh-oh! Trump wants to restart nuclear testing, and Putin says he might do the same. Is that actually allowed under international law?

Not really.

The United States and Russia are both bound by the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), signed back in 1963, which bans nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater. (It’s called ‘Partial Test Ban’ because it still technically allows underground tests, as long as they don’t cause radioactive fallout beyond national borders). The treaty is still in force today.

Some might argue that the PTBT was supposed to be replaced by a newer deal: the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), adopted in 1996, which bans all nuclear explosions everywhere. It’s one of the most widely supported arms-control treaties ever: 185 countries have signed it and 178 have ratified it (i.e. completing the official approval process in their own national systems to make it legally binding). But it’s never actually taken effect. That’s because it needs 44 specific countries (Article XIV(1)), including the U.S. and Russia (full list here on p. 54), to ratify it before it becomes law. Both signed on in 1996 but never completed that step.

So for now, the CTBT sits in legal limbo, and the older PTBT still stands. That means the U.S. and Russia are still legally bound not to carry out nuclear tests in the atmosphere, outer space, or underwater.

So what happens now?

If either country goes ahead with nuclear tests, they would likely face intense diplomatic pressure to stop. Some countries might even consider imposing sanctions, though the fact that these are major nuclear powers makes that complicated. In theory, another country could possibly bring the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that nuclear tests pose security and environmental risks that affect all states. Other dispute-resolution measures could also be used, but all of these options require political will and cooperation. In practice, diplomatic pressure and negotiation are probably the most effective tools to persuade two nuclear-armed countries to refrain from testing.

Fingers crossed!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Subscribe now

What’s happening in Sudan? (In 1 minute)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Sun, 02 Nov 2025 09:02:39 GMT

Sudan is a country in Northeast Africa where two big groups of soldiers are fighting each other. One group is the Sudanese Army (backed by the government), and the other is the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which is fighting against it. Both want to control the country.

The fighting is hurting many ordinary people, including a non-Arab African group of mostly farmers called the Masalit, who live in the western Darfur region.

Some, like Human Rights Watch, a UN body, and the United States, believe the RSF may be deliberately trying to destroy the Masalit people — in other words, committing genocide.

There is also suspicion (here, here and here) that the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country in the Middle East, has helped the RSF with weapons or money. Sudan’s government even took the UAE to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing it of being complicit in genocide by funding and arming the RSF — but the ICJ refused to hear the case.

Things have recently gotten much worse: In October 2025, the RSF captured El-Fasher, the last major Darfur city still held by the Sudanese Army. Tens of thousands of people fled to nearby towns to escape the RSF attacks, and many are now without food, water, or medical care.

So what now?

The UN Security Council has been paying attention: it has ordered the RSF to stop, has long ordered all countries to stop providing arms and set up a Panel of Experts to monitor the situation — but the conflict continues. In theory, the Council could send peacekeeping troops…
The International Criminal Court (ICC) can put those responsible for major crimes on trial (adding to its ongoing investigation on Darfur for crimes committed between 2003–2008, where the first criminal was declared guilty this month!). Meanwhile, the UN has published a report calling for legal action against current violators.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Subscribe now

SAIL: Conflicts & Crises

Top 5 International Law Stories of 2025 (in 2 minutes)

Do Mass Shootings Break International Law? (In 2 minutes)

The Thailand-Cambodia Clashes: 3 Legal Questions the News Won’t Answer (in 1 minute)

Are Trump and Putin Allowed to Restart Nuclear Testing? (In 2 minutes)

What’s happening in Sudan? (In 1 minute)