Over the past thirty years, international trade has grown constantly and since 2008 it has increased by 26 per cent (World Trade Organization 2019). In the same period, foreign direct investment (FDI) grew more than 20 per cent before 2000, 8 per cent in 2000–7, and has shown slow growth since 2008, averaging about 1 per cent growth per year for a decade (UNCTAD 2019b, xi). We have also observed (but lack systematic data) a spectacular growth of trade in parts and components and a substantial increase of trade in services, reflecting companies’ investment and sourcing decisions, increasing the web of global and regional supply chains. The “death of distance” through lower transport costs and advancements in information technology has contributed to accelerating these developments. Integration into the world economy has also become an important element of foreign aid policy. All of these economic and political processes have been underpinned since the end of the Cold War by a liberal consensus.

Outside human rights, the other major challenge to sovereignty of ASEAN members was the question of when sovereign interests could be bypassed – sometimes deemed necessary under the prerogative of accelerating the ASEAN Economic Community. The Eminent Persons Group tasked with making suggestions for the future charter proposed the most radical changes to ASEAN decision-making to achieve these goals, yet these were eventually rejected and the ‘ASEAN minus X’ formula was confined to the ASEAN Economic Community, only if there were consensus to do so. The control of the initiative, the use of shared norms and precedents, and other opportunities for influence played decisive roles in the eventual decision.

This chapter explores the paradoxical logics embedded in the Swedish policymaking elites’ rationale for exporting advanced conventional weapons to the so-called developing world. Using the South Africa JAS-39 Gripen fighter jet deal as a case study, the chapter demonstrates how the policymaking elite consciously pursues a dual strategy regarding the production and circulation of weapons – one that is driven both by the Swedish internationalist tradition of “doing good” and “being good” in the world, but also for instrumental purposes. Overall, the investigation illustrates how such processes have become embedded societal symbols of Swedish identity in the post-Cold War era – a phenomenon that serves to conflate the operations of a militarized state with the perceived ideals of Swedish mediation, honest brokership, and overall as a significant contributor to frameworks of promoting ethical and peaceful methods on a global stage. These paradoxes, it is argued, raise important questions about so-called “Swedish exceptionalism.”

Conflicts literature is ripe with aphorisms about the significance of history for our subject.1 It has even been claimed that “in private international law, history is everything.”2 Others lament – or warn – that “everything worthy of trying has been tried before, under the same or other labels.”3

It is fair to say that international law has always considered its fundamental purpose to be the maintenance of international peace. Although ethical preoccupations stimulated its development and inform its growth, international law has historically been regarded by the international community primarily as a means to ensure the establishment and preservation of world peace and security. This chapter is concerned with the procedures available within the international order for the peaceful resolution of disputes and conflicts, except for judicial procedures covered elsewhere.

The ongoing deadlock of the WTO Appellate Body (AB) poses one of the main challenges to the rule-based multilateral trading system since its establishment in 1995. Whilst most of the current discussions prompted by the AB crisis focus on formal WTO adjudication, modernization of the “jewel in the crown” could also include re-evaluation of alternative means of dispute resolution, in particular, mediation (McDougall 2017).

The rise of individual criminal responsibility directly under international law marks the coming together of elements of traditional international law with more modern approaches to human rights law and humanitarian law, and involves consideration of domestic as well as international enforcement mechanisms. Although the rights of individuals in international law have evolved significantly in the post-1945 era, the placing of obligations directly upon persons as opposed to states has a distinct, if narrow, pedigree. Those committing piracy or slave trading have long been regarded as guilty of crimes against international society bearing direct responsibility, for which they may be punished by international tribunals or by any state at all. Jurisdiction to hear the offence is not confined to, for example, the state on whose territory the act took place, or the national state of the offender or the victim. This universal jurisdiction over piracy constitutes a long-established principle of the world community. All states may both arrest and punish pirates, provided of course that they have been apprehended on the high seas or within the territory of the state concerned. The punishment of the offenders takes place whatever their nationality and wherever they happened to carry out their criminal activities.

While chapters on state-to-state dispute settlement mechanisms (DSMs) are a common characteristic of modern PTAs, they have not been very often used by the PTA parties to enforce their rights. The scarce use of the PTA fora in the past has been attributed to the preference for the WTO DSM, as well as to the insufficiently advanced substantive PTA rules, which often merely mirrored the WTO norms. In light of the latest developments in the international trade regime, this chapter shows that a rise in the use of PTA DSMs can be already noted and anticipates that the number of PTA disputes could continue to grow. Therefore, the potential risks that are associated with this rise will be tackled.

The seas have historically performed two important functions: first, as a medium of communication; and, secondly, as a vast reservoir of resources, both living and non-living. Both of these functions have stimulated the development of legal rules. The fundamental principle governing the law of the sea is that ‘the land dominates the sea’ so that the land territorial situation constitutes the starting point for the determination of the maritime rights of a coastal state.

International law since the middle of the last century has been developing in many directions, as the complexities of life in the modern era have multiplied. For, as already emphasised, law reflects the conditions and cultural traditions of the society within which it operates. The community evolves a certain specific set of values – social, economic and political – and this stamps its mark on the legal framework which orders life in that environment. Similarly, international law is a product of its environment. It has developed in accordance with the prevailing notions of international relations and to survive it must be in harmony with the realities of the age.