Celebrating 50 years of scholarship

The Fordham International Law Journal is in its 50th year of publication. As one of the most competitive international law periodicals, the Journal attracts contributions from prominent statespersons and members of the academic, legal, and political communities. FILJ pieces have been cited by international courts, CFR and ALR annotations, administrative courts, federal courts of appeals, state courts, and the US Supreme Court.

ILJ Online

Student Blogs

  • Taxing Foreign Capital Gains: Revenue Potential and Policy Tradeoffs

    The United States generally does not tax capital gains realized by foreign investors on U.S.-sourced investments, provided they are not engaged in a U.S. trade or business. At the same time, foreign investors account for more than a fifth of activity in U.S. capital markets. Volume XLIX staffer Freya Stavis argues that these untaxed capital gains represent a revenue source that remains untapped. This post looks at the policy reasons behind the current approach and considers whether it still makes sense to keep that revenue untaxed.

  • Wages as a Trade Governance Problem

    Even when firms comply with domestic wage law, workers in global supply chains may still earn less than a living wage. In this post, Volume XLIX staff editor Julia Rallo argues that low wages are not just a labor-law problem, but also a consequence of trade and supply-chain structures that shape wages upstream. The post explores why meaningful progress on living wages may require addressing trade governance alongside labor protections.

  • Switched Sides: How Pakistan’s Omid Strike Exposes the “Unable or Unwilling” Doctrine

    On March 16, 2026, Pakistan Air Force jets hit the Omid Drug Rehabilitation Center in Kabul. This attack killed at least 143 patients and injured many more. Pakistan implicitly justifies its actions using the “unable or unwilling” doctrine – which allows strikes against non-state actors in another country. Volume XLIX staff editor Kalsoom argues that the Omid strike misuses the doctrine. This post highlights the doctrine as a tool for political convenience, not law.