Sanctions have become the West’s favourite alternative to war — a way to punish wrongdoing without pulling the trigger. But as courts step into the fray, the line between law and power is blurring. Should judges second-guess governments on national security? Should intelligence stay secret in the name of fairness? And when one country’s financial laws reach halfway around the world, is that leadership — or legal imperialism?

We explore the uneasy balance between justice and realpolitik, featuring voices from across the spectrum: from John Bolton and Kenneth Roth to Rosalyn Higgins, Robert Kagan and Martti Koskenniemi.

As digital platforms become the public’s first point of reference on matters of law and conflict, their claim to neutrality takes on legal weight. When allegations are presented as findings, and consensus replaces evidence, these platforms begin to function as quasi-judicial actors — without the procedural safeguards that the rule of law demands.

Across governments and institutions, the principle of due process is being quietly eroded. What was once the foundation of fairness has become framed as an administrative burden. Under the banner of “efficiency” and “delivery,” procedures are being bypassed in ways that expand discretion, obscure accountability, and weaken public trust. This article argues that true efficiency in governance cannot exist without procedural integrity- and that the language of speed is increasingly used to legitimise arbitrary power.

The International Court of Justice’s latest advisory opinion on Israel’s conduct in Gaza has reignited long-standing debates over fairness, context, and credibility in international law. While presented as a neutral interpretation of legal obligations, the opinion overlooks critical national security realities, ongoing humanitarian efforts, and the political motives that continue to undermine trust in global institutions.

When people think about justice, they usually think about a judge handing down a long-awaited opinion. But we often forget fairness, which is not just about who wins, it is how we get there. With growing concerns about bias, digital decision making, and political division, we explore why justice today depends more than ever on trusted process.

The internet remembers everything, but should it? The “right to be forgotten” has become one of the most debated ideas in modern privacy law, as courts try to balance personal dignity against the public’s right to know. This article looks at how that balance is being struck, and what it means for life in the digital age.

For us at the Legal Integrity Project, the lesson is crystal clear: legitimacy in international law cannot be decreed; it must be earned through rigour, neutrality, and humility. If courts become arenas for political theatre, their judgments will speak loudly but persuade few

“Proportionality” has quietly become one of the most important ideas in modern law. From free speech and data privacy to environmental regulation and national security, judges across the world use this doctrine to decide when rights can be limited and when the state has gone too far. But what does it really mean to be proportionate, and why does this idea matter more than ever in a divided age?