After more than a decade of work, the accomplishments of the International Criminal Court are highly contested. In this article, the authors ask, what can and should we expect from international criminal courts? How can international trial and punishment constitute a suitable response to episodes of mass violence?
What interests do states have in assisting and protecting vulnerable populations beyond their borders? Today, confronted as we are with civil wars, mass atrocities, and humanitarian catastrophes that have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians and generated the displacement of sixty million more, this question is as urgent as it has ever been.
As the dust has settled following the 2008 financial crisis and the economic dislocations that ensued, it has become clear that central banks have gained considerably in authority— using highly unorthodox tools to stimulate the economy, taking a greater role in financial regulation, and putting themselves in more politically sensitive positions.
In recent years philosophical discussions of human rights have focused on the question of whether “humanist” and “political” conceptions of human rights are genuinely incompatible or whether some kind of synthesis between them may be possible.
There is increasing speculation within military and policy circles that the future of armed conflict is likely to include extensive deployment of autonomous weapon systems. The ethical case for allowing autonomous targeting, at least in specific restricted domains, is stronger than critics have typically acknowledged—but such targeting still remains ethically problematic.