The more courts that exist, the less enforceable the system becomes. We now live in a world where the same conflict can simultaneously constitute a war crime in The Hague, a lawful act of self-defence in one capital, and a human rights violation in Strasbourg- with no mechanism to reconcile these competing verdicts.

Diplomatic immunity, one of international law's oldest and most successful frameworks, faces a legitimacy crisis as high-profile abuses collide with contemporary demands for accountability. While the 1961 Vienna Convention remains essential for protecting diplomats from political persecution, reforming immunity without undermining the reciprocal protections that keep diplomats safe worldwide requires careful multilateral coordination—not unilateral action that could endanger envoys in hostile environments.

International law has always struggled with the crime of aggression. Theoretically, it stands as the gravest breach of international peace - the "supreme international crime" from which all others flow. In practice, however, it remains one of the most difficult offences to prosecute, hampered by narrow definitions, complex jurisdictional barriers, and explosive political sensitivities. Yet something is shifting. Across legislative chambers, university seminars, and advocacy networks, pressure is mounting to stretch the boundaries of aggression far beyond what its architects envisioned.

Public debate now uses the word “genocide” more readily than ever, often without reference to the strict legal criteria that define the crime. This article explores how the misuse of grave legal terminology - particularly the neglect of intent, evidentiary thresholds, and case law - threatens the credibility of international legal institutions. It argues that protecting the precision of the Genocide Convention is not about politics, but about safeguarding the rule of law itself.

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.