Every year, the American Branch of the International Law Association hosts International Law Weekend in New York City, the largest fall gathering of international law practitioners, government officials, academics, and students in the United States. Held on Oct. 22 at the House of the New York City Bar Association and on Oct. 23 and 24 at Fordham University School of Law, the theme of International Law Weekend this year is “[R]evolution in the International Legal Order.”
In connection with International Law Weekend 2026, Just Security will once again be publishing a series of expert essays related to the conference theme, including analyses from both established voices and emerging scholars who will be presenting at the conference. In my role as president of the American Branch of the International Law Association, I write both to introduce the series and to contribute an essay related to the conference theme.
International Law and Institutions Under Attack
As readers of Just Security know too well, we seem to be living through a period of radical change, marked by challenges to bedrock legal principles, retreat from longstanding international legal commitments, and attacks on international legal institutions. A conference dedicated to discussion of the consequences of these developments and opportunities for renewal could not be more timely or important. International Law Weekend 2026 features more than 35 panels on a wide range of topics related to this theme, but I am especially looking forward to the Opening Session on Oct. 22, at 5:30 p.m. in the Great Hall of the House of the New York City Bar Association, where I’ll engage in a free-ranging chat about the future of international law in this time of tumult with ASIL President Oona Hathaway and Professor Dapo Akande, the United Kingdom’s candidate for election as a judge to the International Court of Justice.
As background for that discussion, I want to explain the importance of international associations such as the American Branch of the International Law Association and American Society of International Law in standing up for international law and international institutions at a time when they are under attack by our own government.
Since his inauguration in January 2025, President Donald Trump has tried to dismantle the laws and institutions that have brought the world peace and prosperity for 80 years. During his past two years in office, Trump has imposed tariffs in violation of free trade agreements, withdrawn from international organizations that have long benefited from U.S. leadership, refused to pay billions of dollars in assessments to the United Nations, drawn down military support for NATO, attacked over 60 so-called Venezuelan and Columbian “narco-vessels” in the Caribbean and Pacific, invaded Venezuela and captured its president, conducted a massive bombardment of Iran and killed its supreme leader, imposed an armed blockade of Cuba, and expressed open disdain for international law and international institutions. In January, Trump told the New York Times: “The only limit to my global power is my own morality. I don’t need international law.” At a March Pentagon briefing, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that U.S. military forces would no longer comply with “stupid rules of engagement” and added that the United States will provide “no quarter” to its enemies. And in July, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a U.S. campaign to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court.
Among U.S. presidents, Trump has been uniquely retaliatory. When those in his own party vote against his foreign policy actions, he works to have them defeated in the next primary. When judges rule against him, he publicly castigates them and threatens impeachment. When former government officials contradict him, he has the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute them. When law firms sue to block his actions, he revokes their security clearances and terminates their government contracts. And when university professors challenge his policies, he cuts off the university’s federal grants.
Under those circumstances, it is hard to muster the courage to stand up for the rule of international law. Precious few have done so, and it seems the U.S. system of checks and balances has largely broken down. Yet, history teaches a lesson about the importance of standing up for the rule of law before it is too late. In this context, I often recall the famous words of German concentration camp survivor, Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The first time that I considered Niemoller’s words as something more than just of academic interest was in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. President George W. Bush declared a war on terrorism, the United States invaded Afghanistan, and the military apprehended 800 suspected members of al Qaeda and imprisoned them in the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Bush believed the detention center to be a “law free zone” since it was outside of the United States. With his authorization, U.S. personnel subjected the detainees to extraordinary interrogation techniques, including repeated acts of waterboarding. High-level White House and Department of Justice lawyers penned memos saying that the president had the authority to do this, even if it violated the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention.
In response, I convened a group of distinguished experts on terrorism and the laws of war at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. After hours of discussion, we reached consensus on a document we called the “Cleveland Principles on Detention and Treatment of Persons in Connection with the Global War on Terror.” The Cleveland Principles were intended as a clear restatement, written in plain English, of the fundamental international legal rules that apply to the treatment of persons in connection with the so-called “Global War on Terror.” The goal was to produce a text that would be easy for the American public, members of the military, and members of Congress to understand — a text that would spell out that, in the context of the Global War on Terror, there is no “law-free zone,” torture can never be justified; outsourcing torture is unlawful; and that government personnel may be criminally liable for involvement in acts of torture.
I circulated the document throughout academia, and it was signed by over 200 experts. I then sent it to all 535 members of the U.S. Congress. Two months after receiving the Cleveland Principles, in December 2005, Congress enacted the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment into law by a veto-proof margin (90-9 in the Senate; 308-122 in the House). I received numerous letters from members of Congress indicating the important role that the Cleveland Principles and the list of prominent endorsements played in their decision to support the McCain Amendment. And my role as convenor of the Cleveland Principles experts meeting garnered me an invitation to testify before Congress about legislation to modify the al Qaeda Military Commissions.
Afterward, a West Point Professor named William C. Bradford published an article in the National Security Law Journal in which he claimed that academics who oppose the administration’s policies regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay are “treasonous” and should be arrested, interrogated, and even attacked as “unlawful enemy combatants.” He listed who he considered the worst of these, and there I was near the top of the list. In other words, the professor had drawn a target on my chest for standing up for international law.
The ABILA Takes a Stand
Fast forward 25 years. Bedrock international legal norms are once again under attack by an American president. This time, I am not just a law professor but serving as the president of the American Branch of the International Law Association, a large organization of international lawyers that has existed for 104 years. As mentioned above, the risks of speaking up under the second Trump administration are as serious as after 9/11. Nevertheless, with the authority I have as president of the American Branch of the International Law Association, on Feb. 25, 2025, I issued a widely circulated President’s Statement that listed the actions taken by the Trump administration in its first month in office that violate international law and fundamentally impair the international legal order, including:
- issuing direct threats to the sovereignty and integrity of several countries in violation of the United Nations Charter;
- advocating the forcible transfer and deportation of millions of people from their homeland in violation of the Geneva Conventions;
- threatening withdrawal of support from the NATO alliance in violation of the treaty of Washington;
- breaching rules protecting asylum seekers and refugees in violation of the Refugee Convention;
- suspending enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in contravention of the U.N. Convention Against Corruption;
- dismantling government institutions and dismissing government officials who are responsible for promoting the international rule of law and upholding the United States’ international legal obligations;
- imposing sanctions on officials of an international criminal court created to impartially prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes; and
- withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the Paris Climate Accord, and signaling the imminent withdrawal from more international bodies by launching a 180-day review of all international organizations and international conventions to which the United States is a party.
I ended my statement saying:
While our organization is non-partisan in nature, we are committed to peace, justice and the rule of law — values that are threatened by the actions of the current administration. The Branch’s motto, emblazoned on our website, is: “We need international law and cooperation now more than ever.” That has never been truer than today.
In the months that followed, Trump launched trade wars with almost every country in the world and defunded the U.N., which reported in January that it may need to shutter its doors for lack of funds. And then, on the morning of Jan. 3, news broke that Trump had ordered the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro.
At our quarterly meeting on Jan. 16, Board Chair Leila Sadat and I asked the Board of Directors of the American Branch of the International Law Association to issue a strong statement condemning the U.S. invasion and attacks against Venezuelan and Columbian vessels as clear violations of international law. The statement that we drafted for their consideration dismissed the U.S. government’s justifications for these actions as illegitimate, saying:
While not condoning the Maduro regime, the ABILA Board rejects the Administration’s justification for these actions, namely that they constituted a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defense in response to the threat posed by narco-terrorists and/or law enforcement action to arrest Maduro, as incompatible with international law.
The ABILA Board had never before issued such a statement, and many members felt it was inappropriate for a politically diverse organization such as ours to attempt to do so. The ABILA Board is composed of experts from across the political spectrum, from academia, NGOs, and law firms. We discussed the importance of taking a stand, and we discussed the risks to each of us, and to our organization as a whole. And then we voted. I thought it might be close. The tally was 30 in favor, 0 opposed!
Subsequently, on March 6, I issued another ABILA Presidential Statement condemning the massive U.S. aerial attacks against Iran, as well as Iran’s retaliatory explosion of violence against countries in the region. And most recently, on Aug. 11, the ABILA’s International Criminal Court Committee issued a Statement Against U.S. Efforts to “Disable” and “Dismantle” the International Criminal Court.
I have no illusion that these ABILA Statements will prompt a change in the Trump administration’s policies, but I am emboldened by something Robert Kennedy Sr. said when he visited Apartheid South Africa in 1966: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.” When academics, business executives, law firm heads, and leaders of international associations like the ABILA take a stand, those ripples can build into a wave of change.