As the United Kingdom considers narrowing the scope of jury trials amid mounting court backlogs and increasingly technical evidence, fundamental questions emerge about the balance between procedural efficiency and democratic participation in justice. Legal experts warn that reforms must preserve institutional legitimacy while addressing systemic pressures.

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.