The then ICJ Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh defined immunity “[as] … an exception from the general rule that man is responsible legally and morally for his actions.”1 While it is widely acknowledged that serving high-ranking public officials enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts in most circumstances, there is an ongoing debate regarding how far the immunity entitlement extends and whether there are exceptions to it, particularly in cases of serious criminal wrongs. The present chapter reviews the conceptual, doctrinal, and theoretical foundations of the immunities of foreign officials, and their subjective, material, and temporal scopes. It also examines the rules that govern situations when foreign official immunity may not apply or may apply only to official acts, and the conditions for either of these outcomes. The chapter draws from recent developments in international criminal law, international human rights law, and transnational criminal law, and builds on the influential contribution of the ILC on the topic “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction” included in the long-term program of work of the commission in 2006.

Chapter Nine analyses the regulations related to carbon capture and storage (CCS) in China, given its indispensable role in achieving the carbon neutrality target. It starts by elaborating on the essential components of CCS regulation, particularly risk allocation, to provide an analytical framework against which the Chinese regulatory framework for CCS is assessed. This chapter examines the current design of the legal and regulatory systems, identifies the regulatory gaps and uncertainties that hinder the implementation of CCS, and discusses the measures needed to address these gaps and uncertainties. It also explores the legal and regulatory implications of using CO2 as a resource, which has the potential to enhance the commercial viability of CCS and promote the development of the CO2 industry.

In this chapter, Nigel White assesses the contribution of the UN’s collective security system to the settlement of international disputes. This chapter tests the assumption that impartial law-based dispute settlement by the Security Council is neither achievable because of its political nature nor required by the UN Charter. This chapter analyses the provisions of the Charter and practice of the Security Council in the field of peaceful settlement, looking for evidence of impartiality in both inter-State and intra-State disputes and assessing the influence of peacekeeping mandated by the Council upon impartiality. This analysis shows that the concept of impartiality in peaceful settlement has largely disappeared and asks, in the conclusion, whether it is possible and desirable to (re)turn to impartiality.

In this chapter, James Mehigan focuses on the contribution of international criminal law (ICL) to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. More specifically, this chapter looks at the aims of ICL and analyses how effective it has been at achieving its international law and criminal law objectives. It argues that ICL does not make the broader contribution to dispute settlement that many commentators hope for because it provides a form of retributive justice that does not necessarily engender a sense of justice for victims, nor contribute to reconciliation or fact-finding. After looking at the impact of ICL in the Former Yugoslavia, this chapter concludes that there is little evidence to show that ICL achieves any of its aims other than individualising guilt and punishing offenders – in other words, ICL’s contribution to the settlement of international disputes is minimal and should not be overstated.

Chapter 4 examines the scope and content of the prohibition of the use of force and discusses some of the main points of controversy related to it.

This chapter reviews how the recent sanctions have been enforced, both by domestic authorities and through multilateral cooperation. chapter also examines strategies taken by would-be sanctions evaders to conceal their attempts to circumvent the broad sanctions. Enforcement plays a key role in the ability of the sanctioning jurisdictions to effectively implement their sanctions and incentivize change in the behavior of the target or by parties indirectly affected by the sanctions.

In this chapter, Sir Malcolm Evans examines the role and legitimacy of international human rights mechanisms of dispute settlement. This chapter argues that the relationship between international dispute settlement and the work of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies is demonstrated by a series of cases brought by Qatar against the United Arab Emirates before both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). This chapter explores some of the tensions which have been revealed concerning the interplay between the work of the CERD Committee and that of the ICJ and how each responded to them. It notes that the multifaceted and sui generis nature of their work means that they do not operate in a single ‘conceptual space’ and that the nature of the treaty bodies, their role and function, and the environment in which they work need to be borne in mind if their work is to be properly appreciated, understood, and engaged with.