Science AI Journal
Social Sciences · Research topic

Open research questions in International Law and Human Rights

118 unresolved questions extracted from the limitations and future-work sections of 5,760 International Law and Human Rights papers in our library. Each links back to the study that raised it.

What the literature leaves open

  • In the Romanian system, the combination of Articles 58 and 2577 of the Civil Code ensures that even if a foreign law governs the facts, its application is limited by the inalienable nature of personality rights.

    The Protection of Human Dignity and Personality Rights in the Context of Conflict of Laws · 2026 · DOI

  • SURLOVSKA RISTEVSKA: Invisible Victims: The Enduring Legacy of Roma Persecution 237 is not limited to the experiences of the historically dominant or visible groups.

    Invisible Victims: The Enduring Legacy of Roma Persecution from Nuremberg to Today · 2026 · DOI

  • By contrast, this article uses Malaysia as a critical case study to examine the legal implications of the persistent non-ratification of ICERD, a dimension of the international human rights scholarship that remains insufficiently examined.

    The ICERD Divide: Does Ratification Deliver, or Does Non-Ratification Discriminate? · 2026 · DOI

  • broader consequences, as they not only give rise to the responsibility of the acting state, but also impose an obligation on other states not to recognize or support such actions. Therefore, violations of the principle of the prohibition of the use of force are not merely regarded as matters of bilateral relations between states, but as breaches of the fundamental interests of the international community as a whole, requiring collective attention and response from the international community. B. The Interrelation Between Jus Cogens Norms and Erga Omnes Obligations in Cases of Alleged Use of Force Against Iran Conceptually, the relationship between jus cogens and erga omnes can be understood as the relationship between a norm and the legal consequences it generates. Jus cogens functions as the highest substantive standard that establishes absolute limits on state conduct. When such a norm is breached, the violation is no longer regarded as an ordinary breach, but rather as an infringement of the fundamental values of the international community. Accordingly, jus cogens not only operates as a legal norm governing state behaviour, but also as an instrument for protecting the fundamental interests of the international community as a whole. In such circumstances, erga omnes obligations arise, namely obligations that confer both rights and responsibilities upon all states to respond to such violations. In other words, a breach of jus cogens transforms the character of a dispute from a purely bilateral matter into a collective and universal concern. This relationship has been recognized in international legal practice, including in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, which has affirmed that the breach of certain obligations gives all states a legal interest to act, even if they are not directly affected. 12 Accordingly, the existence of erga omnes obligations demonstrates that the protection of fundamental norms of international law constitutes a shared responsibility of the international community as a whole. Erga omnes obligations arising from violations of jus cogens are not abstract in nature, but rather have concrete implications for the conduct of other states. In this context, such obligations may be manifested in several forms.16 First, there is an obligation not to recognize as lawful the situation created by such a breach. This means that other states must not accord legitimacy to the consequences of an act of aggression, including any changes in territorial status or political circumstances resulting from the unlawful use of force. Second, other states are under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining such a breach.

    Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Obligations in the United States–Israel and Iran Conflict: An International Law Perspective · 2026 · DOI

  • other sources of international law. Thus, the existence of jus cogens does not merely operate as an ordinary legal norm, but also serves as a fundamental basis that governs the validity of other norms of international law, ensuring their consistency with the fundamental principles of the international community. Furthermore, the position of jus cogens within the hierarchy of international law indicates that this norm functions as an instrument for the protection of fundamental values, such as human dignity, international peace, and global justice. Therefore, the existence of jus cogens is a crucial element in maintaining the order of international law and ensuring that every act of states remains within the framework of universal values recognized by the international community as a whole. 2. Identification of Alleged Violations of Jus Cogens in the US–Israel Conflict The principle of the prohibition of the use of force is one of the main pillars of the modern international legal system and is widely recognized as part of the jus cogens norms.9 This provision is explicitly set out in Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliges all states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state. This norm is not only treaty-based in nature, but has also evolved into customary international law, binding on all states without exception. Accordingly, the principle of the prohibition of the use of force holds a fundamentally important position in maintaining international stability and peace, and serves as a basis for interstate relations within the framework of modern international law. In the context of the conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran, alleged violations of this principle arise particularly in relation to cross-border military actions undertaken without clear legitimacy under the framework of international law. In general, the use of force may only be justified under two primary conditions, namely: (1) authorization by the United Nations Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, or (2) the exercise of the right of selfdefense as provided under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, the legality of the use of force in international conflicts must always be assessed based on the provisions established in the Charter of the United Nations as the principal legal instrument governing the use of force by states.

    Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Obligations in the United States–Israel and Iran Conflict: An International Law Perspective · 2026 · DOI

  • II. METHODOLOGY This study employs a normative legal research method using both a conceptual approach and a statutory approach. Normative legal research is adopted because the study focuses on the analysis of international legal norms relating to jus cogens, erga omnes obligations, the prohibition of the use of force, and other principles of international law relevant to the conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran. The conceptual approach is utilized to examine the concepts of jus cogens and erga omnes based on legal doctrines and the views of international law scholars. Meanwhile, the statutory approach is employed to analyze relevant international legal instruments, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Rome Statute of 1998, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969, as well as other international legal instruments governing the use of force and the crime of aggression.5 The legal materials used in this study consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources. Primary legal materials include the Charter of the United Nations, the Rome Statute of 1998, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969, as well as judgments and jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations. Secondary legal materials are derived from books, scholarly journals, academic articles, and the opinions of international law scholars relevant to the subject matter of this study. Tertiary legal materials consist of legal dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other supporting references that assist in explaining the legal concepts and terminology employed in the research. The collection of legal materials was conducted through library research by gathering, reviewing, and examining relevant literature and international legal documents related to the object of the study. Subsequently, the collected legal materials were analyzed using a qualitative method with a descriptive-analytical approach. This method involves describing and interpreting relevant rules and principles of international law and relating them to the legal issues arising from the conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran. The analysis was carried out systematically to address the research questions concerning whether the actions of the United States and Israel may be characterized as violations of jus cogens norms and how such violations are connected to the emergence of erga omnes obligations under international law.6 III. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS A. Analysis of the Actions of the United States and Israel from the Perspective of Jus Cogens 1.

    Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Obligations in the United States–Israel and Iran Conflict: An International Law Perspective · 2026 · DOI

  • Furthermore, Article 8 bis (2) defines an act of aggression as the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. The provisions of Article 8 bis concerning the crime of aggression are particularly relevant to the conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran, especially in assessing the legality of the use of armed force. Cross-border military operations that involve the use of force, are carried out pursuant to a deliberate policy by State leaders, and produce significant consequences in terms of scale and impact may potentially be characterized as acts of aggression under international law. Nevertheless, the United States and Israel have maintained that their military operations against Iran were undertaken as an act of self-defence, aimed at neutralizing Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs in order to protect their national security and strategic interests. Accordingly, the United States and Israel reject the characterization of their actions as acts of aggression in violation of international law. According to Yusra Suedi, an Assistant Professor of International Law at the University of Manchester, the military operations conducted by the United States and Israel against Iran constitute a clear example of the crime of aggression. In international law, force majeure or exceptional circumstances must be understood as events that are sudden, unforeseeable, and imminent in nature. Suedi further observed that, since June 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump had repeatedly stated that military action against Iran was intended to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. However, according to Suedi, no sufficient evidence had been presented to demonstrate the existence of an imminent threat warranting such action. Consequently, the military operations undertaken by the United States and Israel in 2026 may be characterized as a form of anticipatory or preventive use of force rather than a lawful exercise of self-defence under international law.1 Under international law, when the use of armed force cannot be legally justified under the doctrine of self-defence, such conduct may constitute a crime of aggression. As a violation of a jus cogens norm, it consequently gives rise to erga omnes obligations, thereby entitling and obligating the international community to respond to the breach in order to safeguard international peace, security, and the international legal order. In international law, jus cogens is recognized as a peremptory norm of general international law.

    Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Obligations in the United States–Israel and Iran Conflict: An International Law Perspective · 2026 · DOI

  • The findings of the analyses confirm that the precision of defining certain aspects is insufficient and there are deficiencies occurring in the Registration Convention, which necessitates updating the Convention’s provisions.

    Criminal jurisdiction in outer space in multi-module space objects. An outline of the problem · 2025 · DOI

  • The article concludes by claiming that the current IHL approach to armed opposition groups is insufficient and that a reassessment of this matter as well as a more profound research into it is needed.

    Právní postavení nestátní strany vnitrostátního ozbrojeného konfliktu v MHP – vybrané problémy · 2025 · DOI

  • Despite all ICC convictions to date involving African defendants, it remains unclear whether African legal sources are meaningfully integrated into the Court’s reasoning.

    The Enduring Imperial Character of International Criminal Law: The ICC’s Conviction Cases · 2025 · DOI

  • Abstract As the mandate of the United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh/ISIL (UNITAD) ended on 17 September 2024, the future of justice for ISIL’s survivors in Iraq remains uncertain.

    As UNITAD is now over: Charting the path toward justice in Iraq · 2024 · DOI

  • This brief reflection goes beyond the Ongwen case to take a wider view of transitional justice mechanisms to note that justice still remains elusive for thousands of other victims of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), both within Uganda and beyond.

    Looking Beyond <i>Ongwen</i> · 2024 · DOI

  • Following the ongoing debates and the importance of the topic, in her article, the author aims to summarise the results achieved in the discussions under the CCW, especially the main steps, successfully handled challenges and shifts in the countries’ positions since 2013, as well as open issues in regulating LAWS under this international convention.

    LETHAL AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS SYSTEMS · 2022 · DOI

  • This article seeks to fill this gap in the literature by analysing how the ne bis in idem and nulla poena sine lege principles, enshrined in Articles 20(2) and 23 of the Rome Statute, protect defendants from subsequent prosecutions and punishments by states and regional courts following their trials at the icc .

    Ne bis in idem, nulla poena sine lege and Domestic Prosecutions of International Crimes in the Aftermath of a Trial at the International Criminal Court · 2021 · DOI

  • Proper understanding of the constitutive elements of the command responsibility is the key to its proper application in practice, and the relationship between superior and subordinate as well as effective control is certainly one of the more complex issues that is insufficiently elaborated in the professional public and the public at large.

    The First Element of Command Responsibility - The Existence of the Relationship of Superior - Subordinate In the International Customary Law · 2021 · DOI

  • We further explore shortcomings arising from the lack of continuity among amicus curiae prosecutors’ activities, as well as standards that are lacking in the procedures, that highlight the need for a new mechanism to better serve the role of the amicus curiae prosecutor in managing offences against the administration of international justice.

    The ‘Prosecutor <i>Amicus Curiae</i>’ at the International Criminal Tribunals · 2021 · DOI

  • Whether it is the means of retaliation or rescue that can be used by a person facing the transmission of infectious diseases, the actions necessary to prevent or combat the pandemic that the law authorizes or the availability or not of a person's health as a social value, the situations that may appear in the near future in the legal practice have not been previously studied by the doctrine and have an element of novelty.

    Cauzele justificative și transmiterea unor boli infectocontagioase · 2020 · DOI

  • The ‘proper’ place of history-writing in international criminal adjudication remains controversial, and even though some judges have preferred to de-emphasize it, the fact remains that ICTs are epistemic engines, systematically and inevitably producing knowledge about the conflicts that come before them.

    History in International Criminal Trials · 2020 · DOI

  • The decisions of the Dutch court represent a change with regard to a trend in which collective responsibility was reduced to a scarecrow argument, where state liability for genocide was limited to the obligation to address criminal responsibility, and where co-agency was a shield preventing the attribution of state responsibility.

    State Liability for Failure to Protect Others. Srebrenica Cases · 2018 · DOI

  • Elaborating on these critiques allows us to respond to a significant gap in research: we examine how standards of procedural appropriateness emerging in the development and usage of AWS often contradict fundamental norms and public legitimacy expectations.

    Autonomous weapons systems and changing norms in international relations · 2018 · DOI

  • Whereas procedural arguments relating to third party rights do not prove to be valid jurisdictional obstacles, the Court's temporal and territorial jurisdiction could nevertheless be limited to acts of direct population transfer committed after April 2015.

    An Unlikely Day in Court? Legal Challenges for the Prosecution of Israeli Settlements under the Rome Statute · 2018 · DOI

  • On the other hand, opponents have disliked everything that has happened in Hungarian constitutional law since 2010 on the premises of global constitutional values, the lack of consensus, self-restraint or elegance.

    Comparativism and the New Hungarian Fundamental Law – Taking Raz Seriously · 2017 · DOI

  • As the book presents a comprehensive examination of the influence of diverse entities in a variety of fields, such limitations are evidenced and inevitably lead to the reassessment of novel theoretical standpoints, as well as to the recognition that a multidisciplinary approach is much needed in order to advance further studies on the issue.

    Defying the Theoretical Constraints of State-Centric Approaches: A Review of<i>Non-State Actors in International Law</i> · 2017 · DOI

  • We likewise find that sentencing at the domestic courts appears to have been comparatively more serious than sentencing at the ICTR and at the Gacaca courts, which calls into question consistency of sentences across levels of justice and should be explored in future research.

    Punishing Genocide: A Comparative Empirical Analysis of Sentencing Laws and Practices at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Rwandan Domestic Courts, and Gacaca Courts · 2016 · DOI

  • Ultimately, the article aims to close the empirical gap in research on ICC intermediaries by releasing them from the analytical confines of the global v.

    Beyond the ‘Global–Local Divide’ · 2016 · DOI

Most-cited papers in International Law and Human Rights

Most recent work

Find a gap in your own International Law and Human Rights sub-topic

This page shows what the International Law and Human Rights literature already flags as unresolved. To narrow it to your specific question, run the guided finder — it searches the gap library on demand and checks candidates against 250M+ OpenAlex works.

Open the Research Gap Finder →

Related topics in Social Sciences

Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
832 open questions
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
784 open questions
Online and Blended Learning
745 open questions
Science Education and Pedagogy
597 open questions
Higher Education Research Studies
588 open questions
Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
563 open questions
Intimate Partner and Family Violence
519 open questions
Early Childhood Education and Development
486 open questions
118 open questions have been extracted from the limitations and future-work passages of 5,760 International Law and Human Rights papers in our library. Each one below links back to the study that raised it, so you can read the original claim in context.

Tools for your next paper

Gaps & Literature SearchFind open questions in any field — 120,000+ open gaps mined from our own library.Pre-CheckIs your paper ready? A Tier 1–5 acceptance probability in seconds.Journal FinderA ranked shortlist of target journals from a 17,500-venue index.Duplicate Publication CheckerCheck prior-publication & salami-slicing risk across 8 sources.Citation GeneratorFreeA DOI or title → APA, MLA, Vancouver, Chicago, BibTeX, RIS. No signup.Graphical Abstract MakerFreeTurn your findings into a colorblind-safe graphical abstract.

Compare the category — Honest roundups of the AI research tools, ours listed alongside the alternatives.

Command palette

Jump anywhere, run any action.