Featured Post from University of Massachusetts Amherst

Does International Law Still Matter? UMass Amherst Expert Weighs In on Doha Debates

Political scientist Charli Carpenter joins an international panel to examine the effectiveness of global rules, the challenges of enforcement and why international law remains essential.

Oct 19, 2026

2 min

Charli Carpenter
CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove


As wars, geopolitical tensions and questions about international accountability challenge the global order, an important debate is emerging: Does international law still matter when powerful countries can choose to ignore it?


That question was at the center of a recent episode of Doha Debates, which brought together international experts to examine the effectiveness, legitimacy and future of international law.


Among the featured panelists was Charli Carpenter, Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who offered a perspective on why international law remains important, even when its rules are violated.


The discussion also featured Balakrishnan Rajagopal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Victor Gao of the Center for China and Globalization and political philosopher Curtis Yarvin.


Carpenter challenged the notion that violations of international law necessarily demonstrate its failure. She pointed to the international agreements that make everyday global cooperation possible, from aviation safety to diplomacy, and argued that international legal frameworks have helped establish expectations for how countries conduct themselves.


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove



Charli Carpenter is a scholar of international relations whose research examines international law, human security, global norms and the role of advocacy networks in shaping international policy.


View her profile





She also emphasized that violations can sometimes strengthen international norms by prompting other countries and institutions to reaffirm their importance.


"And I think it is a common myth that if an actor breaks a rule that necessarily weakens the rule. Sometimes that can be an impetus for others to defend and reaffirm the rule. And it's often the case that rule breakers don't undermine rules, they undermine themselves and their social standing in a community."


The debate explored the role of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court and the challenges of holding powerful countries accountable.


Carpenter also discussed research into international treaties and public attitudes toward nuclear weapons, explaining how international agreements can influence expectations and behavior even when major powers are not parties to them.


As global conflicts continue to test international institutions, the discussion offers a timely examination of whether the international legal system needs reform, stronger enforcement or renewed political commitment.



Watch the full Doha Debates discussion on YouTube to hear Carpenter and her fellow panelists explore the future of international law and the consequences of weakening global institutions.


If you're interested in speaking with Charli Carpenter about international law, global governance, international security, human rights and the future of international institutions, simply click on her profile to arrange an interview today.

Connect with:
Charli Carpenter

Charli Carpenter

Professor of Political Science and Director of Human Security Lab

Charli Carpenter's teaching and research interests include the protection of civilians, laws of war and humanitarian affairs.

International RelationsInternational LawLaws of WarHuman Rights and Humanitarian LawNuclear Weapons
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Massachusetts Amherst

Could a Supreme Court Power Play Backfire on Republicans? featured image

2 min

Could a Supreme Court Power Play Backfire on Republicans?

With November's midterm elections approaching, Republicans may face a consequential decision: whether to confirm another conservative Supreme Court justice before potentially losing control of the Senate. In a new piece published October 14 in The Conversation, Paul M. Collins Jr., professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, examines how such a move could reshape the Supreme Court and intensify political divisions over the judiciary. Collins explains that if Democrats win control of the Senate, a retirement by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito before the new Congress takes office in January could give President Donald Trump an opportunity to appoint a fourth Supreme Court justice. While Republicans could potentially secure another conservative appointment, Collins argues the political consequences could extend well beyond the immediate confirmation battle. As Collins writes in The Conversation: If Alito or Thomas announced their retirement after the midterms, Republicans would have enough time to confirm a successor. The Senate has four and a half work weeks scheduled between Election Day and Jan. 3. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed less than a month after her nomination, making the timeline tight but doable. His analysis draws parallels to the contentious Supreme Court confirmation battles of 2016 and 2020, when Republicans blocked Merrick Garland's nomination before subsequently confirming Amy Coney Barrett shortly before a presidential election. Collins suggests another controversial confirmation could further undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court and strengthen calls for judicial reform, including expanding the number of justices. The stakes are significant. With lifetime appointments shaping constitutional interpretation for decades, the outcome could influence not only the Court's ideological direction but also the future of judicial independence and the relationship between Congress and the judiciary. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research focuses on understanding bias and inequality in the legal system, the selection and work of judges and social movement litigation. View his profile  An established authority on Supreme Court nominations, Collins has researched judicial appointments, political influences on the courts and the confirmation process. He is co-author of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change and Supreme Bias: Gender and Race in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings. As the midterm elections approach, Collins can provide journalists with expert analysis of Supreme Court vacancies, Senate confirmation procedures, judicial politics and the potential long-term consequences of another contentious appointment. If you're interested in speaking with Paul M. Collins Jr. about Supreme Court nominations, judicial independence, Senate confirmation battles and the future of the U.S. judiciary, simply click on his profile to arrange an interview today.

Listen: Donald Trump Loathes the Courts. He’s Following the Autocrat Playbook to Sideline Them featured image

1 min

Listen: Donald Trump Loathes the Courts. He’s Following the Autocrat Playbook to Sideline Them

UMass Amherst Supreme Court expert Paul Collins explains why the courts are a vital check on presidential power and how pending cases could shape how much power Trump can accrue. In democratic systems, the courts are a vital check on a leader’s power. They have the ability to overturn laws and, in Donald Trump’s case, the executive orders he has relied on to achieve his goals. Since taking office, Trump has targeted the judiciary with a vengeance. He has attacked what he has called “radical left judges” and is accused of ignoring or evading court orders. The Supreme Court has already handed the Trump administration some key wins in his second term. But several cases now before the court will be pivotal in determining how much power Trump is able to accrue – and what he’ll be able to do with it. As Paul Collins, a Supreme Court expert from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, explains in episode 4 of The Making of an Autocrat: It’s all about presidential power. And that’s really significant because it’s going to enable the president to basically inject a level of politics into the federal bureaucracy that we frankly haven’t really seen before in the US. Listen to the interview with Collins at The Making of an Autocrat podcast, available at Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.

For Trump’s Perceived Enemies, the Process may be the Punishment featured image

5 min

For Trump’s Perceived Enemies, the Process may be the Punishment

UMass Amherst legal scholar Paul Collins explains how the criminal justice process can punish people even if they are never convicted, from legal fees to lost time and stress. Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty to two criminal charges in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, on Oct. 8, 2025. The charges allege that Comey lied to Congress in September 2020 when he stood by earlier testimony that he did not authorize a leak of an FBI investigation involving Hillary Clinton. Numerous legal commentators on both the left and right have argued that Comey’s indictment is little more than the Trump administration seeking vengeance on one of the president’s perceived enemies. They allege that the president has it out for Comey, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and was fired by Trump in 2017. The president’s own words support the idea that the Trump administration is targeting Comey. In a social media post on Sept. 20, 2025, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to move forward with prosecutions against Comey, Democratic U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James: “They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. …JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” If the case against Comey is exceedingly weak – and little more than a political prosecution – then, in my view as a scholar of the U.S. legal system, it should result in the dismissal of charges by the judge or a not guilty verdict by the jury. But even when an individual is not convicted, the process of defending against charges can itself be a form of punishment, as renowned legal scholar Malcolm Feeley pointed out almost 50 years ago. Here’s how the criminal justice process punishes even innocent people. The criminal justice process The criminal justice process is complex. After a grand jury returns an indictment at the request of a prosecutor, the accused appears in court for their arraignment. They are informed of the charges against them and typically enter a plea. During what’s called “discovery,” the prosecution and defense investigate the evidence the other side plans to rely on. There are also pretrial motions in which the parties ask judges to dismiss charges and accept or exclude evidence. The defense and prosecution may also meet to discuss a plea bargain, wherein the accused may plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence or reduced charges. If there is no plea bargain, then the case moves to trial, which is itself a complicated process. If a defendant is found guilty, they can mount an appeal to higher courts in an attempt to have their conviction overturned. To help navigate this process, criminal defendants typically hire a lawyer. And good lawyers don’t come cheap. Money and time Indigent defendants, who do not have the financial resources to pay their own legal fees, can rely on public defenders paid for by the government. But individuals who can afford to pay for their own lawyer face a substantial financial burden for attorney services and court fees. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can charge more than US$1,000 per hour, with fees quickly adding up. This means that mounting a legal defense can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars. On top of this, it takes a great deal of time to prepare for a criminal case. While lawyers and their staff do much of the legwork for trial preparation, a client works with their attorneys to help formulate a defense. As a result, criminal defendants lose one of the most precious commodities in the world: their time. And this time can come at a tangible cost in the form of lost wages, which harms their day-to-day lives. Put simply, every hour spent preparing for trial is an hour defendants could spend working or enjoying their lives. Stress and embarrassment It’s not pleasant being charged with a crime. The criminal process, which typically lasts months, takes a toll on one’s mental health. This is largely driven by the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of a criminal trial and the possibility of losing one’s freedom if convicted. In addition, there is a social stigma that comes with being accused of a crime. This can result in reputational damage, anxiety and embarrassment. The Trump administration appears to recognize this reality. Several media outlets have reported that FBI leadership had planned a public perp walk for Comey. According to a CBS News report, this was to have included “‘large, beefy’ agents … ‘in full kit,’ including Kevlar vests and exterior wear emblazoned with the FBI logo.” Apparently, the plan was aborted after several FBI supervisors refused to cooperate, viewing it as inappropriate. One agent was disciplined for insubordination after refusing to go along with the plan to embarrass Comey in this way. Not all criminal defendants suffer the same The extent to which criminal defendants experience the criminal justice process as a form of punishment varies from person to person. For high-status people like Comey, lost wages and attorneys’ and court fees may not be that big of a deal. But these costs may be incredibly significant for other people who have been, or are likely to be, targeted by the Trump administration. The high costs of lawyers’ fees are well known to the president. For instance, his political action committee spent millions of dollars on attorneys’ fees in an unsuccessful effort to defend Trump from criminal charges in New York. In addition, people no doubt experience the psychological stress and stigma of a possible criminal conviction differently. But regardless of one’s wealth, the lost time spent preparing a criminal defense is something that cannot be replaced. The recognition that the criminal process is itself a form of punishment is one of the reasons that the Department of Justice has maintained independence from the president. By violating the tradition of staying out of politics, the Justice Department in the Trump administration has opened the door for the president to seek retribution on his perceived political enemies. The mere act of putting them through the criminal process ensures that they suffer, regardless of their guilt or innocence. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.

View all posts
Powered by