"Fun" fact: the war itself, of which the blockade is a part, is illegal.

"You can't fire me, I quit!"

Someone should check in on the rational actor assumption. Seems like it has had a hell of a week/month/year/decade.

Far more turkey trot than marathon

Honestly, in most cases, it's probably better to have a chargé d'affaires running things than whoever Trump would nominate.

Thoughts from midterm grading: a surprising (at least to me) number of students are quite good at writing in cursive.

A block of cheddar could absolutely outsmart this guy.

The order of events is interesting because, just in case anyone forget, Trump has already threatened to invade a NATO member (this very year).

Not everything is a fucking distraction. Fascists can walk and chew gum at the same time.

The "thoughts and prayers" stage of responding to threats of genocide

A bit weird how this article makes it very clear that officers are well trained on these points and then pivots to discussing enlisted personnel in order to create a "dilemma"

The beacon of journalistic integrity made sure to note when AOC said "uh" of "hmm," though.

Are y'all being paid to be on here or is this worrying pro bono?

If Bluesky dies, I'm moving to Venmo. Send me a penny and I'll return it with a 4/10 post.

Feels like an awkward detail here that the US has also not ratified the Law of the Sea. www.nytimes.com/2026/04/02/w...

Sovereign is he who sets the terms and conditions.

I regret to inform you that the Wordle Company is at it again.

Hell, DB isn't that bad if you plan ahead (bring snacks and a few drinks)

"Quality doesn't matter when you're marketing to the AI crowd."

You know what? Good for him.

NATO already went through one bonkers "mission accomplished," thankfully it isn't around to see this one.

Happy to share that "International organizations as places of remembrance: Norm legitimization through memory discourses," with Cornelia Baciu, is now out in Cooperation & Conflict! doi.org/10.1177/0010...

'Tis but a flesh wound

Out: even without ratification, the Pentagon is actually quite keen on UNCLOS. In: the Pentagon conspired to murder UNCLOS, to the significant benefit of Iran.

Pets can be incredibly special and if you have one in your life, maybe give them an extra ear scratch tonight

Get in, we're going to that bridge. You know, the bridge that's too far. That one.

The future is AI and also hand signed checks.

fuck this shit

If Iran doesn't reopen Hormuz, the US is prepared to close it.

"There they go again, a certain Yale prof with an aggressively shallow take on the politics of law."

A hell of a pairing with the recent SCOTUS "you can't sue the post office for throwing away or refusing to deliver your mail" ruling.

I cannot express how incendiary, moving, brave and important this feels. Not so much a manifesto against AI chatbots, as a plea for students--for all of us--to the things that allow us to think for ourselves, and to build our own future against narratives of the inevitability of the present path

"We need people to volunteer to gatecheck their bags or we will have to randomly select people" is such a silly airline bit. "You can guarantee yourself a worse flight experience OR you can wait and roll the dice."

A "first drafter" is a co-author. In the very literal "they have authored the manuscript" way. So, the biggest takeaway here is that this attorney has always been a piece of shit.

"The house is on fire. We recommend a glass of water and an aspirin."

So, I teach a MA course on the politics and practices of international law. In that course, students write legal justifications for hypothetical states. One option is a use of force/Art 51 letter. Their roughest first drafts are more coherent and competent than this Art 51 word salad from the US.

"You won't be able to afford groceries, but the Dow Jones will be fine."

...why would you need to escort ships after hostilities ended?

✋ Former USG war crimes lawyer here. Apropos of SecDef's remarks this morning: Denial of quarter—even the declaration of no quarter—is a war crime. And recognized as such by the US Government. From DoD's Manual for Military Commissions.

The Netherlands has also filed its declaration of intervention in South Africa v. Israel (the Gaza genocide case). Its observations will focus on forced displacement, children, starvation, and deliberate withholding of humanitarian aid. www.icj-cij.org/sites/defaul...

Does your theory of civil-military relations account for the military side being terrified that they'll be called soy boys?

These "international law needs to change in light of the Iran war" pieces operate on the narrowest (& deeply Western) assumptions of whose views matter in international law. To folks like Watkin's, IL 'works' only if it ultimately reflects (+ enables) the preferences of major Western states.

Great piece, to the point, by Derk at the NRC, with Cedric, Julie, Sergey, and other experts and colleagues. Great title, great lead. If you read Dutch, read it. #InternationalLaw #InternationalRelations www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2026/...

"Nearly every Senate Democrat." It's Fetterman. We all know the exception is Fetterman.

🚨 New publication Very happy to share that my article in @globcon.bsky.social has now been published open access. You can read it here: doi.org/10.1017/S204...

Reminds me of the well-known Sherlock Holmes mystery with "the dog that didn't bark but also totally did bark and Holmes heard it and it was such a real bark."

Ahhh, the never subtle Edmund Burke red flag

Imagine using the "national humiliation" of Suez to advocate FOR joining a pair of states in an illegal war in the Middle East.

This piece 1) overstates the effect R2P has had as a norm & 2) stretches the bounds of credulity with interpreting US justifications. The justifications avoid the language of IL and R2P for good reason - they are an active rejection of the framework, not some clever attempt to find space within it