For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. In a time of exceedingly complex problems, the last few weeks have seen some remarkably wrong “solutions”. Contributions to the blog over the last fortnight have grappled with these, not least the host of legal questions raised by the US’s ongoing adventurism in Iran and Latin America. These are joined by analyses of the EU-US’s long-standing tussle over geographic indications, Argentina’s attempt to withdraw from the World Health Organisation, and national security in investment arbitration. Our joint symposium with Just Security on the ICRC’s Updated Commentary on Geneva IV continues, and a reflection on the murder of Alexei Navalny takes us to deeper questions of justice and truth. Last week also saw the publication of the latest issue of EJIL Vol. 36 (2025) No. 4.
US/Israel—Iran war
In the wake of the Minab school strike, Marko Milanovic argues that while artificial intelligence is increasingly used in military operations—such as AI decision-support systems for targeting—it does not fundamentally change how international criminal law assigns responsibility for war crimes. Existing legal frameworks, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, are largely technology-neutral and can already address crimes facilitated by current AI systems. Although AI may complicate investigations and increase the scale of harm, the core challenge—proving human intent in war crimes—remains essentially the same as in non-AI military operations.
Turning from US-Israeli strikes to Iran’s response, Alexander Lott argues that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is not legally a naval blockade under the law of armed conflict at sea and that neutral shipping retains a right of passage. Absent an effective blockade, neutral vessels can still navigate the strait under the passage regimes recognized in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and customary law, though disputes remain about whether transit passage or innocent passage applies. US or Israeli naval escorts could unintentionally make merchant vessels lawful military targets under the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.
Latin America
On 25 February 2026, a Cuban government vessel and a speedboat registered in the US as FL7726SH exchanged fire in Cuban territorial waters. Four people onboard the speedboat were killed. Christian Henderson argues that this incident illustrates an important legal grey area between the law of the sea and jus ad bellum. Under UNCLOS, the vessel likely violated the rule of innocent passage, allowing Cuba to take enforcement measures in its territorial sea. However, Cuba’s rhetoric about “aggression” hints at a broader self-defence narrative under the UN Charter, raising the possibility that maritime law-enforcement incidents could be reframed as part of a wider use-of-force dispute between states.
Amid threats to Venezuela and Cuba, Luíza Leão Soares Pereira argues that the United States’ push for Brazil to label two major crime syndicates as “terrorist organizations” represents an attempt to exert coercive influence over Brazilian domestic affairs, particularly its upcoming presidential elections, in violation of the principle of non-intervention. While the US has previously used such designations to justify military operations abroad, there is little evidence that it intends to use force against Brazil directly, though the threat itself carries political leverage. Brazilian authorities argue that these criminal syndicates are motivated by profit rather than ideology, and that labeling them as terrorists would hinder effective law enforcement cooperation and breach Brazilian sovereignty.
Geographical indications
From the war on terror to the war on terroir, Lukas Herich traces the long-standing transatlantic conflict over Geographical Indications (GIs). He highlights the EU’s insistence on strict GI protection to safeguard cultural, economic, and consumer interests, versus the US’s historically restrained approach favoring trademark-based certification. Recent US trade policy, exemplified in the 2025 Special 301 Report and new bilateral agreements with countries like Argentina and Malaysia, aggressively challenges EU GIs, pressuring third countries to prioritize US market access over EU commitments. The EU’s future success depends on swiftly implementing and enforcing existing and new trade agreements, as hesitation risks legal conflicts, weakens its global position, and leaves its GI protection vulnerable to US influence.
Joint Symposium: ICRC updated commentary on Geneva IV
Our Joint Symposium with Just Security on the International Committee of the Red Cross’s updated commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention continues:
Mona Rishmawi argues that the International Committee of the Red Cross’s 2025 Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention is not just interpretive but a normative intervention: the real problem in protecting civilians is not gaps in the law, but failures of good-faith compliance. She makes the case that the Commentary strengthens an integrated approach across humanitarian, human rights, and criminal law, while clarifying that all states—not just parties to a conflict—have duties to prevent violations and ensure accountability, including through universal jurisdiction. The Updated Commentary is a warning and a call to action: existing law is robust, but its effectiveness depends on states actually enforcing it.
Russia: Navalny and the Central Bank of Russia
Marko Milanovic argues that the reported poisoning and death of Alexei Navalny—attributed by several European states to Russia—illustrates both the evidentiary limits and the practical realities of public attribution in international law, where credibility and circumstantial evidence often matter more than disclosed proof. He juxtaposes this with the cautious approach of the European Court of Human Rights, which in Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 4) found violations of the right to life without directly attributing his death to the state, highlighting tensions between legal standards and political reality. Beyond the details of the doctrine, Navalny’s posthumous memoir Patriot is a reminder that law and truth-telling remain central tools against authoritarianism—even as regimes rely systematically on repression and lies.
Philipp Kehl provides a primer on the Central Bank of Russia’s legal challenge before the European Court of Justice to the permanent freezing of its assets. The challenge to Council Regulation (EU) 2025/2600 is made on three grounds: violations of fundamental rights (especially property), breaches of state immunity under international law, and improper legislative procedure. While the case is likely to be admissible on precedent recognizing foreign states as legal persons, it is likely to fail on the merits. EU courts have previously upheld similar asset freezes as proportionate, grant limited review over contested customary international law, and may accept the Council’s reliance on economic risks to justify its legal basis. Despite some uncertainty, especially regarding procedure, the assets will likely remain frozen until Russia ends its aggression and provides reparations.
Investment arbitration: National security and self-judgment
Fabian Eichberger makes the case that the Riverside Coffee v. Nicaragua award demonstrates that even self-judging essential security interests clauses in investment treaties are subject to a “good faith” review. This requires a plausible link between state measures and the protection of national security. The tribunal introduced a new temporal and procedural dimension to this review, holding that Nicaragua could invoke the security exception only while the unrest was ongoing and must provide timely notice to affected parties. Overall, the case signals a tightening of scrutiny over self-judging security exceptions, reinforcing that states cannot invoke them indefinitely or without a credible connection to actual security concerns.
Withdrawing from the WHO?
Andreas Piperides takes us into some of the complex legal issues raised by Argentina’s attempt to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO): the WHO Constitution contains no explicit withdrawal clause, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties cannot directly apply retroactively, though its principles reflect customary international law. The Secretariat’s legal analysis concludes that unilateral withdrawal is not recognized under either the treaty’s history or practice, meaning the World Health Assembly (WHA) would need the consent of all members for Argentina to exit legally. Suspension of membership offers an alternative that balances state sovereignty with organizational continuity. The WHA faces several options—consensual withdrawal, suspension, majority approval, referral to the ICJ for advisory opinion, or a combination of suspension and ICJ advice—highlighting the tension between collective international interests and individual state autonomy.
New Issue of EJIL
Vol. 36 (2025) No. 4 is out! Its arrival was accompanied by a number posts, outlining the contents of the issue and throwing a spotlight on the book reviews, as well as introducing a guest editorial note by Kathleen Claussen and Sergio Puig. EJIL was also delighted to announce the winner of the EJIL Peer Review Prize, awarded to Taylor St John, and acknowledge the academic citizenship of all those who took time to peer review for the journal. A heartfelt thank you!
As ever, events and announcements can be found here and here.