When War Reaches the Sea, Who Protects Civilian Sailors?

Dr. Garima Tiwari, Associate Professor of Law, National Law University Delhi

Himani Jha, Research Associate, National Law University Delhi

Over the past two months, a series of attacks on commercial vessels in and around the Strait of Hormuz has killed and injured Indian seafarers, forced crews to abandon ships, and repeatedly disrupted one of the world’s most important shipping routes. The vessels involved, from MT Marivex, MT Settebello and MT Jalveer to GFS Galaxy, MT Al Bahiyah and MT Mombasa, were different; so were the circumstances and also the parties alleged to be responsible. What connects them is the growing exposure of civilian seafarers to a conflict in which they have no part. Among these was the attack on MT Settebello, in which three Indian seafarers were reportedly killed in June. While U.S. officials have maintained that the vessel failed to comply with instructions issued during blockade operations, the ship’s operators dispute that account, leaving the precise circumstances of the strike unresolved. Beyond endangering seafarers, disruptions in the Strait threaten the movement of energy supplies and other essential cargo. These developments raise a broader question: what protections does international law provide to civilian mariners caught amid expanding hostilities at sea?

Continue reading

When Terrorism Has No Fixed Meaning: Counter-Terrorism and the Governance of Exception in Egypt

Somaya Selim[1]

Egypt has faced serious terrorist violence, giving counter-terrorism a legitimate place within the state’s sovereign responsibility to protect its population. In response, the enactment of the Counter-Terrorism Law (Law No. 94 of 2015) and the Terrorist Entities Law (Law No. 8 of 2015) restructured the country’s national security architecture. While international and domestic legal debate routinely scrutinizes the linguistic breadth of these statutes, focusing primarily on the scope of criminalized conduct, this emphasis obscures a deeper institutional reality. The critical legal question is no longer simply who may be prosecuted as a terrorist, but rather what the justice system becomes empowered to do once the terrorism framework is invoked. A terrorism classification operates as a powerful legal gateway. It fundamentally alters an individual’s procedural trajectory, modifies the mechanisms of pretrial detention, shifts the dynamics of judicial review, and ultimately tests the practical boundaries of access to justice long before guilt or innocence is finally adjudicated.

Continue reading

Toward Cybersecurity Standards for Digital Evidence at the ICC

James Robert Quick

I. International Criminal Justice Has Entered the Digital Evidence Era Without Digital Forensics Standards

The International Criminal Court has modernized the collection of evidence faster than it has modernized the authentication of evidence. That gap, between enthusiastic embrace of digital submission infrastructure and an underdeveloped framework for forensic-grade verification, has become one of the most consequential unresolved problems in contemporary international criminal procedure. Wars are now documented through smartphones, satellite imagery, Telegram channels, and open-source investigations of a sophistication unimaginable a decade ago; the Office of the Prosecutor receives hundreds of thousands of digital submissions annually through platforms built for the task. And, working with Eurojust, the Office of the Prosecutor has issued guidance to civil society organizations for documenting those crimes. The evidentiary framework governing those submissions, however, remains substantially anchored in assumptions developed for an analog world.

Continue reading

The “Impunity Clause” by Another Name: Article 46A bis of the Malabo Protocol and the Crisis of Accountability in Africa

Bonita Ayuko  

Few provisions in African international law have attracted as much critical attention, or as blunt a nickname, as Article 46A bis of the Malabo Protocol. This post takes that nickname seriously. It asks whether the label “impunity clause” is legally earned, politically inevitable, or simply unavoidable given the way African states have approached the ICC. Drawing on the contrast with Article 27 of the Rome Statute and the 2019 Al-Bashir Appeals Chamber judgment, it argues that Africa’s recent trajectory, from Malabo’s immunity clause to the Sahel’s exit from the ICC, is less about rejecting accountability than about a deeply contested struggle over who gets to define it.

Continue reading

Code of War: How AI Firms Are Rewriting the Rules of War and what that means for International Criminal Law


Efthimia (Mariefaye) Bechrakis, Esq.

On March 26, 2026, a federal judge blocked the Pentagon from branding Anthropic a “supply chain risk.” The ruling does more than grant an early legal victory for Anthropic. It exposes a deeper structural shift in how the boundaries of military power are being negotiated at a moment when contemporary warfare is increasingly mediated by Artificial intelligence.  For International Criminal Law (ICL), this shift raises a more fundamental question: who bears responsibility when the conditions under which force is exercised are shaped, not on the battlefield, but upstream, through privately designed systems?

Continue reading