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 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 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.

Orbital Militarization and Weaponization of Space is no longer a speculative concern tied to distant technological horizons; it is a present structural feature of international security.

Indigenous Peoples in International Law occupies a distinctive and increasingly consequential place within the contemporary international legal order. The subject is not theoretical or symbolic. It governs concrete disputes over land and natural resources, the legality of extractive and infrastructure projects, the protection of languages and cultural heritage, the regulation of conservation policies, and the accountability of states and corporations for historical and ongoin

Nagorno-Karabakh has become one of the most legally instructive conflicts of the post–Cold War international system, not because it is unique, but because it exposes, with unusual clarity, the structural limits of international law when sovereignty, self-determination, and the use of force collide over a prolonged period.

The legality of seizing Russian Central Bank assets turns first on precision about the object and mechanism of the proposed measure.

Customary international law operates as the default legal framework of the international system. It governs situations in which treaty law is absent, incomplete, politically unusable, or deliberately avoided.

The U.S. Interest in Greenland has resurfaced as a legally consequential issue because it places a traditional strategic ambition into direct confrontation with the contemporary international law of territory.

The Tigray war marks one of the most consequential armed conflicts of the early twenty-first century for public international law, not because it created new rules, but because it exposed how fragile existing legal frameworks become under conditions of internal fragmentation, regional entanglement, and sustained information control.

The Rohingya Genocide is not a rhetorical label, a political slogan, or a journalistic shortcut. It is a legal characterization that must be assessed against the strict thresholds of international criminal law.

Crimes against humanity entered international law as a response to atrocities that could not be adequately captured by traditional war crimes doctrine. The concept emerged to address large-scale violence committed against civilian populations as a matter of policy, including acts carried out by a state against its own population.

Nicolas Maduro's arrest has immediately positioned itself as a landmark event in contemporary international law, not because of any judicial outcome, but because of the method through which a foreign state seized a sitting head of government.

Economic Sanctions under International Law have become one of the dominant tools of contemporary statecraft, used to influence the behaviour of states, entities, and individuals without crossing the threshold of armed force.

International Humanitarian Law is the branch of public international law that regulates situations of armed conflict by imposing legal limits on violence and by protecting persons who are not, or are no longer, participating in hostilities.

Immunity of State Officials is one of the most structurally contested doctrines in contemporary public international law. It sits at the intersection of two foundational but increasingly antagonistic legal imperatives: the sovereign equality of States and the consolidation of international norms aimed at individual accountability for serious violations of international law.

Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors sits at the fault line between the UN Charter’s state-centric security model and contemporary patterns of cross-border violence.