It is a sign of the times—or at least how we think of the times—that nearly all the posts of the last fortnight concern armed conflict. As the Iran war rumbles into its fifth week with no end in sight, the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine continue to ask difficult questions of what international law is and what it can be expected to do. These posts are joined by two seminal decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on US illicit firearm trafficking and forced sterilization. Not to mention a new episode of the EJIL Podcast.
Iran war
As the mission (insofar as it exists) continues to creep and the conflict spills ever further, the US and Israel’s unlawful war in Iran has preoccupied a number of posts in the last fortnight.
Israeli strikes on Iranian oil facilities raise concerns under international humanitarian law, particularly the prohibition on acts intended to terrorize civilians, even when targeting dual-use infrastructure. Lizaveta Tarasevich argues that disproportionate attacks on such targets—especially when causing widespread, foreseeable civilian and environmental harm—may indicate an intent to instill fear, inferred from their scale, visibility, and limited military advantage. Overall, the strikes’ severe indirect effects and broader political context suggest they may violate proportionality and potentially fall within the prohibition against terrorizing the civilian population.
Hussein Badreddine argues that Israel’s large-scale evacuation orders in Lebanon, which displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians, raise serious legal concerns under international humanitarian law, particularly regarding forced displacement and the prohibition on coercion and terrorizing civilians. While evacuation warnings can be lawful in limited circumstances, these blanket orders were neither necessary nor proportionate to specific military objectives and instead appear aimed at exerting pressure on civilians and authorities. The scale, accompanying threats, and lack of clear military necessity suggest the orders may constitute unlawful coercion and potentially a war crime.
Pornomo Rovan Astri Yoga shows us how recent naval incidents involving Iran, the United States, and regional States highlight the continued relevance of the law of neutrality at sea in modern conflicts. Neutral States may be required to conduct humanitarian rescue operations but must also intern rescued belligerent personnel and limit assistance—such as ship repairs—to avoid supporting one side. Overall, cassical neutrality rules remain essential for balancing humanitarian duties with the obligation of non-belligerent States to stay neutral in contemporary naval warfare.
Picking up this thread, Himanil Raina argues that legal debates on the Iran conflict have been overly narrow. Focusing only on the UN Charter and self-defence, they overlook how recent state practice—especially by Switzerland and Sri Lanka—demonstrates the continued relevance of the law of neutrality under the Hague Conventions. Their recognition of a “state of war” shows that neutrality law can apply based on the scale of hostilities, independently of formal war declarations or judgments about the conflict’s legality. UN Security Council Resolution 2817 reinforces that neutrality and Charter-based rules coexist, affirming that even during war, third states retain protected rights (like navigation), and recognizing a war does not legitimize aggression.
Illicit firearms trafficking at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Illicit firearms trafficking from the US fuels widespread violence across Latin America and the Caribbean, operating through complex criminal networks tied to drug trade and weak regulatory systems. Juan Carlos Portilla argues that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion 30/2025 reframes this issue as a human rights crisis, establishing that states—especially exporters—have legal obligations to prevent arms diversion, regulate industry actors, and ensure justice for victims. Addressing this hemispheric crisis requires stronger international cooperation, expanded legal accountability—including extraterritorial responsibility—and urgent political action to dismantle the transnational arms supply chain.
While Thairi Nazareth Moya Sánchez agrees that the advisory opinion establishes a robust human rights framework on illicit firearms trafficking and state obligations, she makes the case that it avoids directly addressing whether arms-industry immunity laws violate victims’ rights to access justice. Though the Court outlines duties to regulate, supervise corporations, and ensure remedies—including for cross-border harm—it stops short of applying these principles to laws such as the US Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that shield companies from liability. This omission leaves a critical gap, effectively deferring the question of corporate accountability and procedural immunity to other legal forums despite providing the tools to challenge such regimes.
Protection of journalists in occupied Ukraine
Viktoriia Roshchyna, a Ukrainian journalist who reported on crime, human rights and Russia’s actions in occupied Ukraine, died in Russian custody. Natia Kalandarishvili-Mueller argues that Viktoriia was protected under international humanitarian law, as her reporting in occupied Ukraine did not constitute harm to Russia or direct participation in hostilities. Her detention lacked lawful justification, as journalistic activity cannot be treated as a security threat warranting internment under occupation law. Her torture, incommunicado detention, transfer to Russia, and death in custody constitute grave breaches of international humanitarian law, highlighting Russia’s failure to uphold its legal obligations toward protected persons.
Gaza and memory
Abdalrohman Khamise Rusruse shows us how destruction in Gaza entails a “double erasure” of both lives and identities, and proposes a “Stones of Memory” project—modeled on memorial practices such as the Stolpersteine in Germany—as a way to preserve individual names and histories within the rebuilt landscape. He frames this idea within a three-part legal architecture of the right to truth: investigation and accountability, symbolic reparation through memorialization, and community participation in reconstruction as an expression of self-determination. Meaningful reconstruction must embed memory into the city’s fabric, ensuring dignity for victims and grounding Gaza’s future in justice, recognition, and collective remembrance.
Forced sterilization at the IACtHR
Anna Kohte argues that the Inter-American Court of Human Right’s judgment in Celia Edith Ramos Durand v. Peru is a significant advance in addressing forced sterilisation, recognizing it as reproductive violence and grounding violations in the right to health, while acknowledging the broader, discriminatory state policy behind such practices. However, the Court declined to classify the acts as torture or crimes against humanity despite strong factual and contextual support, leaving key legal questions about intent and structural abuse unresolved. Overall, the decision reflects both progress and missed opportunities, potentially influenced by political sensitivities, and highlights ongoing tensions in fully acknowledging and legally characterizing systemic human rights violations.
EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 42: Russia, Imperial Continuities and Histories of International Law
A new episode of the podcast is out: Megan Donaldson is joined by Lauri Mälksoo (University of Tartu), Erika de Wet (University of Graz) and the political scientist Gulnaz Sharafutdinova (Director of the Russia Institute, King’s College London) to talk “national” traditions, the language of international law, and whether there is a distinctive Russian approach to the use of international law.
As ever, you can find events and announcements here and here.