The right to protest in International Law is not formulated as a single, self-contained entitlement within any universal treaty. Instead, it emerges as a legally protected practice through the interplay of multiple rights and obligations that structure the relationships among individuals, collective action, and state authority

The Principle of Good Faith in International Law occupies a foundational yet persistently contested position within the international legal order. It is invoked across treaty law, dispute settlement, negotiations, and State responsibility, but rarely articulated with doctrinal precision.

The Right to Connectivity has emerged as one of the most consequential legal questions confronting contemporary public international law. Digital connectivity is no longer a peripheral social good linked merely to economic development or technological progress. It has become the primary channel through which individuals exercise freedom of expression, participate in public affairs, associate with others, assemble peacefully, and access information held by public authorities.

The Artemis Accords constitute one of the most consequential normative developments in contemporary international space law. Adopted in 2020 and progressively endorsed by a growing group of spacefaring and non-spacefaring states, the Artemis accords set out a framework of principles intended to guide civil exploration and use of the Moon, Mars, comets, and asteroids.

The Darfur genocide occupies a central and deeply contested place in contemporary public international law. Since the outbreak of large-scale violence in Sudan’s Darfur region in 2003, international lawyers, courts, United Nations bodies, and states have struggled to determine whether the atrocities committed against civilian populations meet the strict legal threshold of genocide under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The Donroe Doctrine presents itself as a strategic reassertion of United States authority in the Western Hemisphere, framed as a necessary response to renewed great-power competition and regional insecurity.

The jurisdictional gaps in subsea data cables have become one of the most acute structural weaknesses in the contemporary law of the sea. Subsea data cables carry more than 95 per cent of global digital traffic, underpinning financial systems, military communications, cloud computing, and basic civilian connectivity.

The Armenian Genocide occupies a singular position in the structure and evolution of international law. It is simultaneously a historically documented mass atrocity, a foundational reference point for the legal concept of genocide, and a case that exposes the structural limits of international adjudication.

Board of Peace has emerged as a proposed mechanism for conflict management and post-conflict governance at a moment of deep strain within the international legal order. Advanced primarily in relation to Gaza but framed by some of its proponents as a reusable model for future crises, the Board of Peace claims to offer a pragmatic alternative to existing United Nations–centred peace and security mechanisms.

DRC v. Uganda stands as one of the most practically consequential judgments ever delivered by the International Court of Justice on armed conflict between States.

Nicaragua v United States of America stands as one of the most consequential judgments ever delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Decided in 1986, the case remains a foundational reference for understanding the prohibition of the use of force, the principle of non-intervention, the relationship between treaty law and customary international law, and the legal limits of indirect or proxy warfare.

Arrest Warrant Case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) is one of the few International Court of Justice decisions that still structures day-to-day legal advice on both (i) the criminal reach of national courts and (ii) the operational limits imposed by immunities of senior foreign officials.