Search

I. INTRODUCTION 629 II. CURRENT STATE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 630 A. YOGYAKARTA PRINCIPLES 630 B. UN RESOLUTIONS 631 C. INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE 633 D. ASYLUM 633 III. CURRENT STATE OF FOREIGN [...]

Introduction I. General Principles of ICC Jurisdiction and the Rome Statute A. The Nuremberg Consensus B. The Rome Consensus C. Jurisdictional Principles Applicable to Other International Courts and Tribunals D. [...], After twenty years of operation, we know that the International Criminal Court (ICC) works in practice. But does it work in theory? A debate rages regarding the proper conceptualization of the Court's jurisdiction. Some have argued that the ICC's jurisdiction is little more than a delegation by states of a subset of their own criminal jurisdiction. They contend that when states ratify the Rome Statute, they transfer some of their own prescriptive or adjudicative criminal jurisdiction to the Court, meaning that the Court cannot do more than the state itself could have done. Moreover, they argue that these constraints are imposed by international law itself. This Article disagrees, contending that states "confer upon" or "accept" the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals like the ICC not to transfer a subset of their own power to those entities, but because they often want and need those courts and tribunals to do things that they cannot do in their national systems. International law not only allows them to do this: it encourages it. This is true for many international courts and tribunals created by treaties and by the United Nations; this Article contends that it is equally true for the ICC. This Article demonstrates that this theory of "collective conferral" supports the ICC's recent caselaw on jurisdiction and immunities, which is consonant with principles of general international law, the Rome Statute itself, and the values and concerns that drove states to establish the Court in 1998.

I INTRODUCTION In a 1960 lecture, entitled "Freedom and Politics", Hannah Arendt stated: (1) The famous sovereignty of political bodies has always been an illusion which, moreover, can be maintained [...], In this article, which is an edited version of my inaugural lecture at Te Herenga Waka--Victoria University of Wellington, I argue that the concept of sovereignty is crucial to understanding one of the main questions of constitutional theory: how can constitutions facilitate self-government and, at the same time, function as mechanisms for the limitation of political power? I do so by re-examining four different ways in which I have encountered the concept of sovereignty through my academic work.

I INTRODUCTION In June 2019, the United Nations ('UN') Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, gave renewed urgency to the pursuit of wide-ranging efforts that address the root causes of hate speech, when [...], United Nations ('UN') monitoring bodies frequently pose questions about Australia's compliance with the hate speech mandates of key UN conventions. Recently, the Human Rights Committee enquired about inconsistencies across Australian state and territory anti-vilification legislation, as raising issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR'). This article examines the implications of those inconsistencies, both legal and practical, for Australia's ICCPR compliance. At a time when hate speech is not abating but becoming a common feature of an increasingly fragmented society, this article asks the following questions: Are the settings for anti-vilification legislation at state and territory levels appropriate in the balance achieved between applicable human rights? Can Australian state and territory legislation be better targeted to distinguish between prohibited and preserved free speech? Do Australian state and territory laws conform to the requirements of the ICCPR and other UN instruments? The article concludes that the inconsistencies are problematic and lead to public uncertainty, exacerbated by the unpredictable application by some competent authorities. It proposes legislative solutions that focus less on the scope of prohibition (which is dependent on terminology lacking definitional precision) and more on bringing clarity to the scope of excluded conduct, in conformity with ICCPR demands protecting freedom of expression.

CONTENTS I Introduction 1 II Background to and Summary of the Complaint 3 A Climate Change Impacts in the Torres Strait 3 B Lack of Domestic Rights Recognition in Australia [...]

CONTENTS I Introduction 1 II Stage Setting 5 III Characteristics which Challenge Criminal Liability Building Blocks 7 A Modern AI and Reduced Perceivability 8 B Preventable Obstacles to Cognition 11 [...], One major reason for the controversy around autonomous weapon systems ('AWS') is the concern that no criminal liability is possible for resulting war crimes. This article takes a comprehensive look at one factor, the cognitive element of mens rea, and how and when characteristics specific to artificial intelligence ('AI') can render it more difficult to assign criminal liability to the deploying commander. It takes a multidisciplinary approach, considering both technical characteristics of modern AI and realistic conditions under which AWS are used. The article finds that modern AI primarily induces reduced perceivability through imperfect tracking of human intuition, opacity and generic reliability metrics. It also finds that AWS make it easier to willingly avoid acquiring cognition simply through inaction. Subsequently, it attempts to locate the exact loci of the problem within criminal law's spectrum of intent. This article finds that the epicentre of difficulty lies at the intermediate level of risk-taking, and particularly situations of generic risk: the condition where there is awareness only of a nondescript, indeterminate probability of 'something going wrong'. In contrast, no-gap situations are identified higher up the ladder of intent where there is purpose or virtual certainty, and judicious gaps lower down where we want 'impunity' for justified risk-taking and genuine accidents. Additionally, this article also considers the dangers of manufactured ignorance, where the risk can theoretically be known but in practice was not, due to a prior, separate omission. It ends with recommendations to address these challenges, including reducing opacity, standardising iterative investigations and enforcing technical trainings.

I. INTRODUCTION 132 II. DEFINING THE SINKING STATE 135 III. THE CASCADING CONSEQUENCES OF SINKING STATES 140 A. Redefining Statehood 146 B. Undermining Sovereign Equality of States 154 C. Humanitarian [...], Sea level rise due to climate change and the impacts of this rise on small island states are some of the most pressing emerging issues in international law. This article examines the phenomenon of sinking states--low-lying island states at risk of the submergence of the entirety of their territory due to sea level rise. The existence of sinking states raises complex and profound questions related to statehood, nationality, and human rights, to which international law currently provides no sufficient answer. This Article addresses the cascading consequences of sinking states. It evaluates proposals for addressing the phenomenon and analyzes the future implications of these potential solutions. The cascading consequences of sinking states include undermining the principles of the sovereign equality of states and the right to self-determination, redefining statehood in a manner that may unjustly exclude other similarly situated nations and peoples, exacerbating humanitarian crises related to climate change, and undermining the international legal order. This Article is the first to examine what sinking states and the cascading consequences of their existence reveal about cracks in the foundation of international law. Specifically, sinking states reveal weaknesses in the state-centric model of international law and exemplify the peril of a retreat from the progressive development of a more just legal framework Sinking states serve as a metaphor for international law and the whole of humanity. If we fail to meet the urgency of the moment with a radical new vision for our collective security, we risk our own potential demise.

I. INTRODUCTION Canada has done a tire-squealing 180 with respect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the "Declaration"). In September 2007, when 143 countries voted [...], Indigenous peoples encounter serious challenges in asserting their rights and interests in the context of investor-state arbitrations arising out of international investment. Foreign direct investment occurs all over the globe, and it often has a negative effect on Indigenous communities, but the communities are not given a seat at the table if an investor-state arbitration implicates their rights. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is essential in finding a solution. After initially opposing the Declaration, Canada now supports it, and Canada's current approach to implementing the Declaration could serve as a blueprint for other countries. The disadvantage Indigenous peoples face in investor-state disputes can be remedied through implementation of the Declaration. Canada can start fixing the problem by incorporating parts of the Declaration into its domestic law and holding Canadian companies accountable when conducting business abroad. Other countries can follow suit and begin the process of making investor-state disputes more responsive to the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples.

I. Introduction 597 II. Current State of International Law 598 A. Yogyakarta Principles 598 B. UN Resolutions 599 C. International Jurisprudence 601 D. Asylum 601 III. Current State of Foreign [...]

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 1 Table of Contents 1 I. Introduction 2 II. Strategic Abortion Litigation and the Lawsuit's Political Context 7 III. The Order to Create Impunity for Infanticide: [...], In an unprecedented holding for any international human rights court, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered El Salvador to create impunity for infanticide, to carry out criminal procedure law reform to inhibit its prosecution, and to inhibit enforcement of El Salvador's ban on abortion in Manuela v. El Salvador, decided in November 2021. This paper analyzes the case's factual, legal and political context, and challenges the validity of the judgment's holdings under the American Convention on Human Rights.

CONTENTS I Introduction 1 II The Emergence of a Collective Obligation in the Drafting of Article 3 4 III The Implementation of the Collective Obligation in relation to South Africa [...], Under art 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ('ICERD'), states parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction. The provision is central to Palestine's inter-state communication against Israel under arts 11-13 of ICERD, in which it is argued that Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories constitute apartheid. Importantly, Palestine invokes two obligations inherent in art 3--the individual obligation of Israel to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature, and the collective obligation of all states parties to ICERD to condemn such practices by not recognising as lawful the illegal situation, or rendering aid or assistance in its maintenance. This article examines the origin, meaning and implications of the collective obligation to condemn apartheid under art 3 of ICERD. It traces its emergence in the text of art 3 through the drafting history of the provision. It outlines its implementation by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ('CERD') in relation to apartheid South Africa from 1970-94, a period in which South Africa remained outside the treaty and the obligation of all states parties to condemn apartheid was the focus of the Committee's work. Finally, it considers its potential implications in Palestine v Israel, underlining that a finding of apartheid would render the obligation opposable in relation to the other 180 states parties to ICERD under all of its mechanisms. It could be monitored in state reports, individual communications or inter-state communications before CERD, or litigated in inter-state proceedings before the International Court of Justice.

CONTENTS I Introduction 2 II Current International Framework 5 A Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 5 B Multilateral Environmental Agreements 7 1 Convention [...], This article explores the existing international legal framework relating to wildlife trafficking and critically examines proposals to develop a new international instrument to prevent and suppress this crime type. These include suggestions to develop a standalone treaty on the specific topic of wildlife trafficking or broader issues such as wildlife and forest crime or crimes that affect the environment as well as more concrete proposals to draft a new protocol against wildlife trafficking, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. This article highlights the gaps in the existing system and the challenges in developing a new instrument. It seeks to document the state of the current debates, their strengths and shortcomings, and pave the way for the next steps in enhancing global frameworks to prevent and suppress wildlife trafficking.

I. Introduction Like a man coming upon a fork in the road, the international community sits--and has sat for too long--unable to choose between decisive action and the practicability of [...]

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 345 II. TRANSNATIONAL LAW AND THE TRANSNATIONAL PROBLEM OF MISSING MIGRANTS 349 III. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY A TRANSNATIONALLY EFFECTIVE NATIONAL MIGRATION POLICY? 359 [...], All over the world, several thousands of migrants go missing when they attempt to flee from war, violence, persecution, repressive regimes, systematic human rights violations, etc. Thousands die each year in deadly shipwrecks in a desperate attempt to enter Europe and the United Kingdom. In these instances of deaths and loss, international human rights law imposes duties on states to account for people missing in transnational migration and to respect the rights of members of their families. Despite such provisions, states sometimes deny that they have obligations to deal with cases of migrants reported missing in transnational migration until migrants reach their territories. Such conflicting claims raise serious questions about migration policies and governance and how the subject of missing migrants should be dealt with at the international level. The newly adopted UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Objective 8(a-f)) answers a part of the question by recognising that migration generally, and missing migrants specifically, is a transnational social problem which requires greater cooperation amongst states as well as policies with transnational effects. The United Kingdom was one of the earliest countries to endorse the new migration compact, hinting that it respects the sovereign rights of states to determine and implement their own migration policies and protect national interest. The Article asks if, from a transnational law perspective, the UK migration policy in relation to missing migrants is transnationally effective such as to facilitate enforcement of the new Global Compact and other related international instruments nationally. Existing evidence in the literature shows limited knowledge about the transnational effects of UK policies in relation to missing migrants. Therefore, the Article highlights the imperatives of strengthening, in order to avoid a future policy vacuum, the transnational effectiveness of UK policies in addressing the increasing cases of people who go missing while attempting to reach international destinations.

I. INTRODUCTION 352 II. THE HOLY SEE AS THE PARTY TO THE CRC 354 A. Defining the Holy See and its Role in International Law 355 1. The Holy See [...], This article analyzes how human rights obligations apply to the Holy See, focusing on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as the case study. The Holy See is the sovereign of a state and yet it is also a unique non-state actor in international law. Unlike other non-state actors, it has international legal personality, controls territory, and is party to several human rights treaties. At the same time, the Holy See is also a religious institution whose governance of a church is not subject to international law. This unusual arrangement challenges the application of human rights treaties whose terms were designed with territorial states in mind. Under human rights treaties, including the CRC, states parties are only responsible for wrongful acts that are attributable to them, and occur within their jurisdiction. In order to violate the CRC, consequently, a state must not only act wrongfully, but it must have done so in a situation in which it has a sufficient degree of control. However, the Holy See is non-territorial entity that governs a micro-state as one of its international roles, and this reality challenges the application of the jurisdictional requirement. Although the Holy See is bound, it is unclear when its obligations arise. This article concludes that human rights obligations, such as the CRC, should apply to the Holy See similarly to the current approach applied to states. The first critical issue in assessing the applicability of the CRC to the Holy See is describing the relationship between the Holy See and the Vatican City, as two distinct international legal persons, and identifying which entity is party to the CRC. The second issue is applying the concept of jurisdiction as provided in the CRC and in keeping with other human rights treaties, being de facto control, to this non-territorial entity that governs a territorial state. This analysis shows that the Holy See is indeed bound by the CRC and subject to its obligations where it has sufficient control. This article has immediate significance for two reasons. Firstly, this article supports the numerous claims against the Holy See of child abuse as violations of the CRC. Secondly, it also demonstrates that this unusual non-state actor can acquire and comply with human rights obligations. In turn, confirming that human rights obligations apply to this unique actor informs the international community that, following the existing framework, human rights obligations could potentially apply to other non-state actors as international law continues to evolve.

Contents I Introduction II Entry Screening Procedures for Individuals Seeking To Engage Australia's Protection Obligations in Immigration Clearance A Overview and Statistics B Entry Screening Guidelines and the Procedural Instructions [...], Australia's current approach to processing individuals who arrive by air and raise protection claims at or before immigration clearance at Australian airports has not been previously explored. This article reveals a set of policy and procedural instructions, recently released by the Department of Home Affairs ('DHA') under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), which establishes the administrative process of 'entry screening'. The article examines entry screening within the transnational framework governing Australia's legal obligations towards individuals seeking international protection. While much scholarly and public attention has been directed towards policies such as offshore detention and interdiction at sea, the documents reveal that policies designed to deter 'unauthorised maritime arrivals' have similar manifestations--and consequences--for 'unauthorised air arrivals'. The article then turns to an analysis of domestic law, arguing that the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not authorise the entry screening procedures and that the procedures contradict certain statutory guarantees and procedural fairness. The documents further indicate that DHA lacks accurate data on protection claims made in Australian airports. Finally, the article examines why the current practice of entry screening violates Australia's International legal obligations of non-refoulement and non-penalisation.

INTRODUCTION When the United Nations (UN) was formed, one of its most important goals was to render war obsolete. The UN Charter states as a goal the hope to "save [...]

I INTRODUCTION The previous decade concluded by elevating the urgency of climate change action, with climate exacerbating increasingly catastrophic extreme weather events in recent years, resulting in their unprecedented frequency, [...], This article focuses on exploring the applicability of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ('GATT') security exception under article XXI(b)(iii) to a State's contribution or refusal to act on climate change threats, allowing States to justify otherwise WTO-inconsistent trade barriers against other States which fail and refuse to adhere to climate action obligations. The article explores the applicability to climate change threats based on the three-tiered test established in the first WTO Panel ruling on article XXI in Russia --Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit. It then addresses possible criticisms of this potential expansion of article XXI(b)(iii)'s scope and then considers possible solutions to address the uncertainty of the provision's current applicability to climate change threats.

I INTRODUCTION The debate between sovereignty and international institutions is not really new. Sovereignty is one of the most important principles in international law, 'a constitutive rule of international society'. [...], Numerous studies have presented international criminal justice as a threat to State sovereignty. This has often been illustrated by the fact that article 13 of the Rome Statute establishes obligations for States that are not parties to the Rome Statute, without their consent, which may be considered as a threat to their sovereignty. Nevertheless, while this observation may be true in some cases, the opposition between sovereignty and international criminal justice is never absolute. In some cases, international criminal justice could be considered as an ally to State sovereignty. International criminal tribunals never judge States, but individuals. It can then be asserted that international criminal justice helps distinguish between States that are sovereign and individuals who may be tempted to take State sovereignty hostage for their own sakes. This article assesses how international criminal justice can challenge the sovereignty of States. The article also examines arguments asserting that article 13 of the Rome Statute threatens State sovereignty. In the final part, it demonstrates that, under some circumstances, international criminal justice can protect and strengthen State sovereignty.

I INTRODUCTION On 19 November 2020, the Chief of the Australian Defence Force announced the findings of a landmark inquiry by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (TGADF') into [...], Despite many States having incorporated war crimes offences in their domestic legislation, prosecutions under these offences remain remarkably rare. Instead, relevant conduct is often charged relying on military or ordinary criminal law offences, such as murder. At a time when Australia has launched criminal investigations into alleged war crimes committed by members of its armed forces in Afghanistan, it is worth asking whether there are legal or policy reasons for prosecutors to consider preferring charges under Australia's specialised international crimes provisions. This article canvasses the potential challenges that may generally deter States from bringing such charges. It then critically analyses three arguments that may be made in favour of such a course of action.

I INTRODUCTION Climate change has been recognised as a significant existential threat to humanity. (1) This was acknowledged by the Dutch Supreme Court in Netherlands v Urgenda, in which the [...]

I INTRODUCTION In July 2020, the International Court ot Justice ('ICJ') handed down its decisions in Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, [...]

INTRODUCTION 308 I. RISK ASSESSMENT 314 A. Terrorism 314 B. Domestic Safety 315 C. Economic Cost 316 II. RISK PERCEPTION 316 III. RISK MANAGEMENT 320 A. Precautionary Principle 320 B. [...], Refugees are individuals who hold a well-founded fear of persecution based upon their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group and who have resultingly been forced to flee their country. Public awareness of refugee resettlement has grown exponentially in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis, raising questions about the risks and costs that arise from providing refuge and resettling foreigners. This article takes a look at the most frequently cited risks of the resettlement process and analyzes how they are weighted by the public and regulatory bodies. It compares the approach of the United States to strategies adopted in Europe and Australia for recognizing refugees and implementing resettlement programs.

INTRODUCTION 336 I. PROPORTIONALITY 337 - A BASIC DEFINITION II. WHAT IS A CYBER-ATTACK? 339 - VARYING DEFINITIONS A. State Efforts 340 B. US Efforts 341 C. The Shanghai Cooperation [...], With an ever-increasing reliance on State cyber-attacks, the need for an international treaty governing the actions of Nation-States in the realm of cyberwarfare has never been greater. States now have the ability to cause unprecedented civilian loss with their cyber actions. States can destroy financial records, disrupt stock markets, manipulate cryptocurrency, shut off nuclear reactors, turn off power grids, open dams, and even shut down air traffic control systems with the click of a mouse. This article argues that any cyber-attack launched with a reasonable expectation to inflict "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects," must be subject to the existing laws of proportionality. This article further examines the broader concept of proportionality, and the difficulties associated with applying a proportionality analysis to an offensive cyber-strike. This paper asserts that the ambiguities and complexities associated with applying the law of proportionality--in its current state and within a cyber context--will leave civilian populations vulnerable to the aggressive cyber actions of the world's cyber powers. Consequently, this article stresses the necessity of developing a proportionality standard within a unified international cyberwarfare convention and asserts that such a standard is required in order to prevent the creation of a pathway towards lethal cyber aggressions unrestrained by the laws of war.

I INTRODUCTION On 30 August 2019, the Treaty between Australia and Timor-Leste establishing their Maritime Boundaries in the Timor Sea ('Maritime Boundaries Treaty') came into force, (1) permanently delimiting the [...], The oil and gas resources of the Timor Sea have been successfully explored and exploited for many years despite the fact there was no delimited border between Timor-Leste and Australia. Until recently, petroleum activities were conducted pursuant to the Joint Development Petroleum Area (JPDA) regime established by the Timor Sea Treaty. The JPDA regime was a successful model of how States may exploit a resource where there is a disputed boundary, meaning that States can enjoy the benefits of exploitation pending delimitation. When the Maritime Boundaries Treaty between Australia and Timor-Leste entered into force in 2019, it did much more than delimit maritime boundaries between the States - it shifted producing oil fields from a zone of joint State jurisdiction to the sole jurisdiction of one State. The protection of commercial interests was foreseen in the Timor Sea Treaty in the requirement that 'conditions equivalent' be provided in the event that the Timor Sea Treaty ceased to be in force . The phrase 'conditions equivalent' is, therefore, a key term which served to preserve and protect petroleum operators' interests in circumstances akin to State succession. This article considers the transitional arrangements of the Maritime Boundaries Treaty by reference to the primary underlying international law principles embodied in the concept of 'conditions equivalent', namely the doctrine of acquired rights, good faith and pacta sunt servanda.

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 123 II. DISPUTED MARITIME AREAS AND UNILATERALISM 127 III. DISPUTED MARITIME AREAS: THE INTERNATIONAL. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 131 A. Establishing a Single Maritime Boundary 132 B. [...], Unilateral acts undertaken in disputed maritime areas, particularly in relation to mineral resources, frequently lead to conflict between states. Appraisals of the scope that remains for unilateralism in disputed maritime areas under international law exist in both case law and literature, but the precise scope remains shrouded in doubt. The ruling of the tribunal in Guyana v. Suriname--building its argumentation extensively on that of the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) in the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (interim measures)--is significant in this regard, clarifying, at least to a certain extent, the scope for unilateral conduct. Recently, in September 2017, in the maritime boundary dispute between Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) addressed the lawfulness of unilateral conduct by Ghana in a disputed maritime area. The Ghana/Cote d'Ivoire judgment throws a completely different light on the matter, compared to this earlier case law, making revisiting the topic of what the rights and obligations of states are in disputed maritime areas highly necessary and topical.

I INTRODUCTION Treaty withdrawal is increasingly a practical reality in many jurisdictions. This article considers the scope of Australia's executive power to withdraw from treaty obligations and whether any constitutional [...], This article explores the conceptual basis of treaty denunciation in Australia, and whether this power is the executive's unfettered prerogative. In light of uncertain jurisprudence on the conceptual origins of the categories of non-statutory executive power in Australia, the authors countenance the possibility of reconceptualising treaty ratification and denunciation as inhering in multiple aspects of non-statutory executive power under s 61 of the Commonwealth Constitution; that is, in both the prerogative power and the nationhood power. The paper then considers practical consequences that may follow this conclusion, such as constitutional limitations to treaty withdrawal under certain circumstances.

I. INTRODUCTION II. PART I'S FLAWED METHODOLOGY A. Modern Professorial Debate and Unmoored Theory B. Actual Views of Founders and Framers and Trends in Judicial Decision III. Elusive Alleged "Violations" [...]

I. THE PROBLEM: THE CURRENT MIGRANT INFLUX TAKES A TOLL ON THE MIGRANT ISLAND 150 II. BACKGROUND, HISTORY, AND POLITICAL CONTEXT 152 A. Sicily as Part of Italy 152 B. [...]

Abstract: After years of turmoil, the volatile situation in Iraq and Syria erupted into chaos, setting the stage for the rise of Daesh. Under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi [...]

International Disaster Law (IDL) and International Environmental Law (IEL) have developed as two separate subsets of public international law. IDL has until recently focused largely on developing effective disaster relief [...]

The protracted civil war in Syria and the recent onslaught of the Islamic State have devastated the rich cultural heritage of Syria and Iraq, among their many tragedies. In the [...]

1 How Broadly Can the Terms of Article XX be Read? The DSS is not a precedential system; its rulings cannot 'add to or diminish the rights and obligations' of [...]