Logo Logo Logo Logo Logo

In association with the International Commission of Jurists

  • Topics ↓
    • General
    • Use of Force
    • International Criminal Law
    • International Humanitarian Law
    • International Human Rights Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Trade & Economic Law
    • Law of the Sea
    • National Security Law
    • Foreign Relations Law
    • Organizations
  • Regions ↓
    • Africa
    • Asia-Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin & South America
    • Middle East
    • North America
  • Announcements ↓
    • Events
    • Calls for Papers
    • Jobs
  • Symposia ↓
    • Books
    • Articles
    • Themes
  • Media ↓
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Contributors
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Donate
  • Fresh Squeezed! Podcast
  • Topics ↓

    • General
    • Use of Force
    • International Criminal Law
    • International Humanitarian Law
    • International Human Rights Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Trade & Economic Law
    • Law of the Sea
    • National Security Law
    • Foreign Relations Law
    • Organizations
  • Regions ↓

    • Africa
    • Asia-Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin & South America
    • Middle East
    • North America
  • Announcements ↓

    • Events
    • Calls for Papers
    • Jobs
  • Symposia ↓

    • Books
    • Articles
    • Themes
  • Media ↓
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Contributors
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Donate
  • Fresh Squeezed! Podcast

Author: Louisa Handel-Mazzetti

19 Sep

Shielding the Nation, Testing the Peaceful Purposes Principle: the Golden Dome as a Self-Defense Zone

[Louisa Handel-Mazzetti is an Assistant Professor at the Royal Netherlands Defense Academy (NLDA) and a PhD Candidate at the Institute of Air and Space Law at Leiden University] In May 2025, President Trump unveiled the 175 billion dollar plan to build the Golden Dome missile shield, originally introduced in January 2025. Drawing inspiration from Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (‘Star Wars’) and...

Louisa Handel-Mazzetti | 0 Comments
Recent Posts
  • A rejoinder to the incidental civilian harm debate, part II: the untenability of understanding incidental as ‘knowingly and willingly’ killing civilians (no matter how many) without ‘desire’, under ICL
  • A rejoinder to the incidental civilian harm debate, part I: the untenability of understanding incidental as ‘fortuitous’ killing of civilians (no matter how many) under IHL
  • What the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels Means for the Duty to Co-operate
  • Unilateral Regulation Without Mirror Clauses? The Limits of the EU’s Brussels Effect in the EU–Mercosur Agreement
  • Symposium on the Global Sumud Flotilla: The Mechanics of Legal Accumulation – From the Namibia Precedent to the Sumud Flotilla

© Opinio Juris | Design by Open & Honest | In association with the International Commission of Jurists