By Bertrand Russell . Introduction by Colin Heston.

This collection of essays is not merely a pacifist manifesto; it is a profound philosophical inquiry into the nature of justice, the psychology of conflict, and the responsibilities of individuals—especially thinkers and educators—in times of national crisis. Russell, a mathematician and philosopher by training, brings to bear his analytical precision and moral clarity in dissecting the arguments used to legitimize war. His opposition to World War I was not rooted in naïve idealism but in a deep conviction that war, particularly modern industrial war, represents a failure of reason and humanity.

The book opens with an appeal to the intellectuals of Europe, urging them to resist the tide of militarism and to uphold the values of truth and justice even when doing so is unpopular or dangerous. Russell believed that intellectuals had a duty to question the narratives presented by their governments and to advocate for peace, not as a passive withdrawal but as an active moral stance. This appeal is followed by essays such as “The Ethics of War,” “War and Non-Resistance,” and “Why Nations Love War,” each of which explores different dimensions of the war impulse—from philosophical arguments to psychological and sociological observations.

One of the most striking aspects of Justice in War-time is Russell’s willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. He examines the role of imperialism, economic interests, and historical rivalries in fueling conflict, and he critiques the Entente policy and the diplomatic maneuvers that led to war. His essay “The Danger to Civilization” warns of the long-term consequences of war on democratic institutions, civil liberties, and the moral fabric of society.

In the broader context of Russell’s life and work, Justice in War-time marks a pivotal moment. It reflects his transition from a primarily academic philosopher to a public intellectual deeply engaged with the political and ethical issues of his time. The book also foreshadows themes that would recur in his later writings on peace, nuclear disarmament, and civil liberties.

Today, Justice in War-time remains a powerful reminder of the importance of moral courage and intellectual integrity. In an age where war continues to be justified through appeals to patriotism, security, and national interest, Russell’s essays challenge us to ask deeper questions: What is justice? Who benefits from war? And what is the role of the individual in resisting injustice?

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 191p.

By Andrew Willinger

On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The case involves claims brought by the government of Mexico against a group of U.S. gun manufacturers seeking to recover for the costs of gun violence in Mexico that the Mexican government alleges are caused by the gunmakers’ sales and distribution practices that facilitate cross-border gun trafficking.

If the Supreme Court holds that Mexico failed to allege the type of violation contemplated in the predicate exception, that could narrow the scope of predicate-exception litigation substantially to instances where the gun manufacturer itself engages in illegal conduct (rather than aiding and abetting downstream illegal conduct). And such a decision would have major consequences for domestic PLCAA litigation because the new wave of state public nuisance statutes often specifically contemplate that a gunmaker’s distribution practices can give rise to liability even after the point of sale. Another avenue by which the Court could reverse is to focus on the unique causal chain in the case that includes cross-border gun trafficking and harm caused by foreign cartels with American-manufactured firearms. This route seems less likely to broadly unsettle things at the state level, as it is at least possible for the Court to write an opinion that emphasizes how unique the facts of this case are. In most domestic litigation, there simply will not be the same number of intervening actions because the harm caused will be closer to home. That said, it will be important to watch whether the Court seems receptive to the gunmakers’ argument that Mexico’s damages are merely derivative of the harm suffered by individual people harmed by gun violence in the country. That line of argument would presumably hamstring efforts by state attorneys general to pursue predicate-exception litigation against gunmakers based on harm to the public.

64 South Texas Law Review 97 (2025), 5p.

By  The Transnational Alliance to Combat Illicit Trade (TRACIT)  

The 2025 Illicit Trade Index provides governments, policymakers, and enforcement agencies with actionable insights to tackle the challenges of illicit trade. Covering 158 countries—from emerging markets to advanced economies—the Index highlights vulnerabilities, strengths, and trends across national systems. Its data-driven analysis and practical recommendations aim to strengthen policies, enhance enforcement, and promote international collaboration.

Evaluating countries across six key categories and 37 benchmarks, the Index provides a comprehensive framework for assessing resilience. In addition to rankings, it offers regional and economic group analyses, identifying shared challenges and performance trends.

New York: Transnational Alliance to Combat Illicit Trade  2025. 67p.. 

By Yarelix Estrada, Jeffery Sauer, Leonardo Dominguez, Izza Zaidi, Andrew J. Trinidad, Hannah Helmy, Alex Harocopos

Background: Drug checking is a harm reduction strategy that provides people who use drugs (PWUD) information about the composition of a substance. Drug checking has been identified as a key public health response to the continually evolving overdose crisis.

Methods: The New York City Health Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) partnered with existing syringe programs to launch a drug-checking pilot study. The study offered multiple point-of-care drug-checking technologies including fentanyl test strips (FTS) and Fourier-transformed infrared (FTIR) spectrometry, as well as secondary laboratory testing. Fentanyl positivity in major drug types was assessed for each drug-checking technology.

Results: Between November 2021 and December 2023, a total of N = 397 unique participants and drop-off samples contributed a total of N = 1644 samples for drug checking. The majority of samples were sold as opioids (n = 908), with fewer sold as cocaine (n = 314) and methamphetamine (n = 62). 95.3 % (852/894) of opioid samples produced positive FTS. FTIR and secondary laboratory testing resulted in a similarly high prevalence of fentanyl in opioid samples at 84.7 % (769/908) and 89.3 % (519/581), respectively. We did not observe the unexplained presence of fentanyl in samples sold as cocaine or methamphetamine. Further, we describe instances where discussions between technicians and PWUD provided important context that explained the presence of fentanyl in non-opioid samples.

Conclusion: The majority of opioid samples submitted to DOHMH's drug-checking pilot study contained fentanyl. Comparatively, there was little evidence suggesting fentanyl in samples sold as cocaine and methamphetamine. The drug-checking pilot study's point-of-care service delivery model was effective in providing information to PWUD.

Drug Alcohol Depend 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112578. Epub 2025 Jan 27, 47 p.