that’s exactly how I like my croissant, starbucks: toasted into oblivion 🙄

great post

Did the law of armed conflict apply to the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader? AUREL SARI (@aurelsari.com) responds to a text we published last week and argues that the law of armed conflict applies from the very first act of violence in an armed conflict. verfassungsblog.de/killing-kham...

Early visitors this morning at Streatham Campus at @exeter.ac.uk

Let’s hope someone has checked in with the Cypriot authorities to see how they feel about the duties of neutral States…

My thoughts on the legal basis and justification for the UK’s military operations against Iran. It’s complicated…

spot on by Profs @mikeschmitt.bsky.social and Marko Milanovic

“…outside an armed conflict”?

Hostilities in the 2003 invasion of Iraq opened with an attempted decapitation strike against Saddam Hussein.

No reported current membership or affiliation with the armed forces or security services. Most likely not DPHing. What made him a military objective?

Was the Jan. 7 U.S. capture of a Russian-flagged tanker unlawful? Rob McLaughlin, Conor McLaughlin, and @mikeschmitt.bsky.social say the likely answer is yes, under the law of naval warfare: www.justsecurity.org/129792/lonw-...

Great post. Realisation sinking in that forward-leaning lawyering wasn’t the ultimate circle of hell?

Six times in his Davos speech, President Trump declared that the United States had 'gotten nothing' out of NATO. Deeply, deeply offensive.

'The damage has been done': As Trump claims victory on Greenland, Europe loses trust www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...

Six times in his Davos speech, President Trump declared that the United States had 'gotten nothing' out of NATO. Deeply, deeply offensive.

Am confused: so the Trump Administration does need international law after all?

An expert international law analysis of the insurmountable legal obstacles of any US acquisition of Greenland, from the non-use of force to the right of self-determination. By @mikeschmitt.bsky.social and @tessbridgeman.bsky.social www.justsecurity.org/129374/legal...

Professor @aurelsari.com from @uniexeterlawschool.bsky.social discusses the impact of Donald Trump's proposed "Board of Peace" www.euronews.com/my-europe/20...

outrageous to claim that the US never “got anything out of NATO”

this is just insufferable

very difficult to stay zen

President Trump’s threats to seize Greenland by force raise the question whether Denmark could invoke Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union, the EU’s mutual assistance clause. Here’s my take on the matter.

The Art of the Steal: Does the EU’s Mutual Assistance Clause Protect Greenland? opiniojuris.org/2026/01/12/t...

In a nutshell: the rule of law is a fine thing for promoting one's values and interests. Couldn't agree more. The problem is that neither lawfare nor legal Statecraft will be of much use to the US if it dismantles the international legal order. Unless the aim of its lawfare strategy is just that.

States that 'the UK provided enabling support in full compliance with international law' for the US interdiction of the Bella 1. Curious as to the legal basis for interdiction. www.gov.uk/government/n...

Is it the same international law that is not available to Venezuela and not binding on the US that Kemi Badenoch expects the US to honour and available to Denmark in relation to Greenland? #askingforafriend

Allies have increased our presence, activities and investments, to keep the Arctic safe and to deter adversaries.”

Several lines about how this is a pivotal moment for Venezuela's future and then: "Finally, President, the United Kingdom reaffirms its commitment to international law and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations." What an embarrasing non-statement. www.gov.uk/government/s...

' “I’m not going to pretend this isn’t difficult, and it is important that we keep a very important ally like America onboard,” she said. “We have particularly the interests of Ukraine that we need to consider. But it’s meaningless if we don’t support international law.” '

A detailed, authoritative and crystal clear analysis of some of the key international law questions raised by the US armed attack on Venezuela.

good call

try harder?

hola firenze, been a while

The Helsinki District Court published its decision today in the Eagle S case, holding that the damage done to Finnish submarine cables was an 'incident of navigation' under UNCLOS and hence it had no jurisdiction. Quelle surprise. Short official statement: tuomioistuimet.fi/material/sit...

"To get around these fundamental problems, the administration relies on the President making both factual and legal determinations by sheer fiat. In doing so, POTUS is giving himself a license to kill based on his own determinations and designations.” theintercept.com/2025/10/02/v...

provo, utah

Just today: been asked to provide ETA by airline as a condition of boarding with no simple way of proving that I do not need one. I fully expect to be denied boarding at some point.

Yet Again: The U.K. Government Mischaracterizes Its Obligation to Prevent Genocide in Gaza By Professors @tomdannenbaum.bsky.social and @janinadill.bsky.social #UnitedKingdom #Gaza #Diplomacy

Full points to @rosatkins.bsky.social for the effort to get the law right. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

'Might or might not have been an act of war' - sure, but measured against what standard? Under the law of armed conflict, the incident would seem to qualify as an international armed conflict though...

Striking Drug Cartels under the Jus ad Bellum and Law of Armed Conflict By top laws of war expert @mikeschmitt.bsky.social www.justsecurity.org/120235/drug-...

Take a look @aurelsari.com's new article, exploring a provocative topic: As tech innovation changes the realities of war, do the old rules still apply? Part of @carnegieendowment.org series edited by @warmatters.bsky.social and myself! 👇👇 carnegieendowment.org/research/202...

🆕| As technological innovation continues to change the realities of war, the lack of agreement about how pre-digital rules apply to the digitalized battlespace risk turning legal arguments into an extension of conflicts. @aurelsari.com's latest for @carnegieendowment.org👇

The @geneva-academy.ch’s #IHL in Focus Report (2025) reveals a resurgence of international armed conflicts. Erica Harper emphasizes that these developments must be understood as a clarion call for #conflict #prevention. lieber.westpoint.edu/war-reloaded...

Come do a PhD at @forsvarshogskolan.bsky.social. You could be supervised by some of my fantastic colleagues while working in a vibrant, pluralistic & highly engaged research environment. These positions are fully salaried & come with a research budget of 30k SEK a year fhs.varbi.com/en/what:job/...

Reminds me of the NATO bombing of Radio Television Serbia in 1999. Someone involved in the targeting for that strike told me the attack was conducted despite concerns that the RTS facility was not a lawful military objective—an issue later scrutinized by the ICTY. www.icty.org/en/press/fin...

More like @theguardian.com woefully misunderstands the relevant law: the 1884 Cable Convention most definitely does not govern “much of the law of the sea in relation to these highly sophisticated cables carrying hi-tech data” www.theguardian.com/politics/202...