This essay, stimulated by themes discussed by Harold Koh and Todd Buchwald, examines the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the amendment to the 1998 Rome Statute to include the crime of aggression within the ICC’s jurisdiction. The definition adopted in Kampala in 2010 is too long to quote in full but merits careful examination. For example, it states that the “‘crime of aggression’ means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.” It then adopts large swaths of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 1974—the definition of aggression—as its own. Commentators recognized problems with the 1974 definition at the time. The post-Kampala Rome Statute purports to achieve objectivity with respect to aggression through removal of everything having to do with context and the totality of the circumstances. These matters surely should be—and must be—of central importance not only to nonparties but also to the parties to the Rome Statute. The fact that they are absent forms the raison d’être of this essay. Because the ICC is a permanent body, able to take jurisdiction of ongoing problems, its actions may have significant implications for world public order.

“Digital technology is transforming what it means to be a subject.” The increase in the use of big data, self-learning algorithms, and fully automated decision-making processes calls into question the concept of human agency that is at the basis of much of modern human rights law. Already today, it is possible to imagine a form of “algorithmic authority,” i.e., the exercise of authority over individuals based on the more or less automated use of algorithms. What would this development mean for human rights law and its central categories? What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted seventy years ago as a founding document of the human rights movement at the international level, have to say about this?

On December 23, 2016, the United States abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council resolution that condemned Israeli settlement construction, thereby allowing the resolution to be adopted by a vote of 14–0. Israel's response was swift and disapproving.

Party “intent” is not one of the tools that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) gives to treaty interpreters. To be sure, party intent is presumably reflected in the “object and purpose” of the treaty, but it is not a separate criterion; in fact, the VCLT implicitly excludes party intent from playing an interpretive role. Yet many decision-makers, counsel, and academics persistently look to party intent for guidance when interpreting treaties. The most favored nation (MFN) debate illustrates why party intent endures as an interpretive touchstone: treaty language, even when analyzed in context and in light of the convention's object and purpose, does not always lead to clear answers. Both Simon Batifort and J. Benton Heath and Stephan Schill, in their different ways, depart from traditional VCLT analysis and hark to party intent as a reason to endorse a modified approach to treaty interpretation. Yet they also illustrate why party intent is an imperfect tool: party intent is too malleable to be a conclusive guide to treaty meaning.

The field of global migration law looks beyond international law to incorporate all levels of the law, including the regional. This essay explores the regional regulation of mobility, which has indeed become a central subject of discussion and academic analysis. The expansion of human rights law coupled with the explosion of regional processes of integration are the two most important phenomena that have limited the state's capacity to restrict the entry of foreigners and their rights. It should come as no surprise that regional agreements facilitating mobility have proliferated and now involve around 120 countries, either at a bilateral or multilateral level. For one thing, most global migration is regional, whether in Europe, Africa, Asia, or Southern and Central America. In addition, regional instruments can be agreed on more rapidly and, in principle, introduce higher standards of protection and rights due to the more limited number of actors involved in the negotiations. There is, of course, huge variation across regions as to the degree of development of the various agreements, the categories of individuals entitled to mobility and equal treatment and their effective application and enforcement mechanism devices.

In three cases decided on the same day, the French Court of Cassation held that the provisional attachments of funds belonging to the Republic of Argentina by NML Capital Ltd. (NML) were void on the ground of sovereign immunity from enforcement because the funds were intended to finance state noncommercial activities and had not been subject to an express waiver of immunity by Argentina. These cases are the first judicial application by the Court of Cassation of the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004 UN Convention), which France signed on January 17, 2007, and ratified on June 28, 2011.