The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to restore the constitutional balance in decisions to commit the United States to armed conflict. Its central provision — a legislative veto enabling Congress to direct the withdrawal of American forces by concurrent resolution — was cast into legal doubt by the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha. But Chadha was wrongly decided, its reasoning is exceptionally weak, and the Court’s subsequent embrace of functionalism in separation-of-powers cases has left it incoherent as precedent. As the United States drifts deeply into a congressionally unauthorized war with Iran, the case for overruling Chadha, or at minimum limiting it to its facts, has never been stronger.
Archiv: Just Security (media)
Statement by Israeli International Law Scholars Concerning Israel’s New “Death Penalty for Terrorists” Law
(March 31, 2026)
1. The undersigned, scholars of international law in Israeli academic institutions, wish to express our outrage and clear condemnation of Israel’s new death penalty law. It is not only immoral and in violation of the most basic dictates of public conscience, but is also unlawful both in terms of domestic constitutional law and Israel’s obligations under international law.
2. Israel is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966. Under the Covenant it is prohibited to reintroduce the death penalty once abolished – a prohibition which includes, according to the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 36 (2018), a ban on extending the list of crimes to which the death penalty applies or relaxing associated procedural safeguards, even for states that have not formally abolished the death penalty. As long as the death penalty is applicable, legal proceedings relating to its imposition must meet all due process safeguards, including the right to seek commutation of the death sentence. The right to commutation is also guaranteed in the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949. Furthermore, under the Covenant, States must act towards abolition of the death penalty, and in no case may the death penalty be imposed in a discriminatory manner.
Over 100 International Law Experts Warn: U.S. Strikes on Iran Violate UN Charter and May Be War Crimes
We collectively affirm the importance of equal application of international law to all, including countries that hold themselves out as global leaders. Recent statements from senior U.S. government officials describing the rules governing military engagement as “stupid” and prioritizing “lethality” over “legality” are profoundly alarming and dangerously short-sighted. These claims, particularly in combination with the observable conduct of U.S. forces, are harming the international legal order and the system of international law that we have devoted our lives to promoting.
The war, which is costing U.S. taxpayers between $1-2 billion each day, is imposing significant harm to civilians in the region, has resulted in the loss of hundreds of civilian lives across the Middle East, and is causing serious environmental and economic harms.
We write to express our concern about 1) jus ad bellum, or the decision to go to war, 2) jus in bello, or the conduct of hostilities, 3) rhetoric and threats from senior U.S. officials and their allies, which portend further abuses, and 4) the decimation of civilian harm mitigation structures within the U.S. government as a part of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “gloves off” approach to warfare.
Mapping State Reactions to the ICC Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant
We have begun the project of collecting, analyzing, and categorizing official statements in response to the ICC’s announcement, which we consolidate below and will continue to update. If we have missed anything, please send us an email at lte@justsecurity.org.