The law of the sea regulates how states use, control, and share the oceans. This article explains UNCLOS, maritime zones, navigation rights, the exclusive economic zone, continental shelf, high seas, resource rights, and the settlement of maritime disputes.

A ceasefire suspends specified hostilities but does not necessarily end an armed conflict or create peace. This article explains how ceasefires are formed, what they regulate, how violations are assessed, and when they can support a political settlement.

An armed attack is more than an unlawful use of force. This article explains the Article 51 threshold, the ICJ’s scale-and-effects test, direct and indirect attacks, non-state actors, cyber operations, repeated incidents, and the legal consequences of classification.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter establishes the general prohibition on interstate threats and uses of armed force. This article explains its historical development, legal scope, relationship with self-defense and Security Council authority, contested exceptions, and the consequences of an unlawful use of force.

Monism and dualism offer competing explanations of how international law operates within domestic legal systems. This article examines reception, constitutional rank, direct effect, customary international law, individual rights, and comparative state practice.

War crimes are serious violations of international humanitarian law, the body of rules governing armed conflict, for which individuals can be prosecuted and punished (ICRC, 2005).

ICJ preliminary objections determine whether the Court has jurisdiction, whether claims are admissible, and which issues may proceed to the merits. This article explains the governing rules, leading cases, procedural effects, and limits of preliminary adjudication.

Enforcement jurisdiction determines when a state may arrest, search, seize, compel, intercept, or execute against persons, property, vessels, aircraft, or data. This article examines territorial limits, lawful authority abroad, immunity, human rights safeguards, and the consequences of unlawful coercive action.

Prescriptive jurisdiction determines when a state may apply its laws to conduct, persons, property, or relationships linked to more than one country. The doctrine governs extraterritorial regulation, overlapping sovereign claims, universal and treaty-based jurisdiction, and the legal limits of national lawmaking power.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction allows states to regulate certain conduct, persons, markets, or effects beyond their borders, but its legality depends on the jurisdictional basis, territorial sovereignty, immunity, procedural rights, and enforcement method. This article explains the governing principles, major areas of application, and a practical framework for assessing cross-border claims.

Adjudicatory jurisdiction concerns the authority of national courts to hear disputes involving foreign parties, conduct, property, or judgments. This article examines its legal foundations, customary limits, immunities, treaty rules, enforcement barriers, and the unresolved genuine-link debate.

The effects doctrine allows states to claim jurisdiction over foreign conduct that produces significant consequences within their territory. This article examines its development in United States and European Union competition law, its uncertain status in public international law, and the limits required to prevent excessive extraterritorial regulation.

The protective principle allows a state to apply criminal law to foreign conduct by non-nationals when that conduct directly attacks vital state functions. This article explains its doctrinal basis, its limits, its relationship with territoriality and universal jurisdiction, and its risks when national security claims are stretched too far.

Passive Personality Jurisdiction is a disputed basis of extraterritorial criminal law. It allows a state to prosecute certain foreign offenses against its nationals, but its use depends on sovereignty, legality, fair trial rights, treaty practice, and restraint.

ICJ Advisory Opinions are authoritative judicial statements requested by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. They are not binding judgments, but they can clarify binding rules of international law, shape diplomatic practice, influence litigation, and guide how states and institutions understand legal obligations.

ICJ compulsory jurisdiction is one of the most misunderstood expressions in public international law. It does not mean that the International Court of Justice has automatic authority over every legal dispute between States.