In this Article, I argue that there is inconsistency and confusion at the heart of UN policy on use of deadly force by peacekeepers and that this lack of clarity has resulted in deaths and injuries to people that pose no threat to UN forces or anybody else and have not engaged in any violent activities or indeed in any type of crime. Such deaths and injuries are likely to recur if the United Nations continues to use the same rules of engagement for law enforcement operations as it does for operations aimed at curtailing violence by parties to an armed conflict. The problem would be greatly mitigated if the United Nations were to formally commit to applying customary international human rights law standards on use of force in all circumstances except those to which international humanitarian law applies.

The Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is facing a crisis. Appointment of AB members requires a consensus of the Dispute Settlement Body (comprised of all WTO members), and the United States has been blocking a consensus on further appointments since Donald J. Trump became the president. Without new appointments, the ranks of the AB have been diminishing as AB members’ terms have been expiring. If this continues (and many expect the United States to continue blocking a consensus on appointments), then in December 2019, through attrition, the number of AB members will fall below the threshold necessary to render decisions, at which point the AB will cease to function.

The Rule of Law (RoL) builds peace, contributes to sustainable development, and protects human rights. It is an always evolving outcome and all countries face challenges related to the RoL.