Israel has approved a limited framework for an international force in Gaza, but the Security Council—not Israel—provides its legal authority. The deployment’s legality depends on Resolution 2803, occupation law, Palestinian consent, command, immunity, and accountability.

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.

The Houthi maritime blockade claim raises difficult questions under naval warfare, the law of international straits, and international humanitarian law. This article examines whether a non-state armed group can blockade Saudi ports, restrict neutral shipping, or lawfully close Bab el-Mandeb.

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).

Iran’s missile attack on a US base in Jordan killed two American service members. This analysis tests the strike against the UN Charter, Jordan’s sovereignty, and the law of targeting, and explains why an unlawful use of force is not automatically a war crime.

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.