International law has long recognized that the power of a state to identify its nationals is a central attribute of sovereignty and firmly within the purview of domestic law. Yet these boundaries may be shifting, in part due to the effect of international human rights norms. In 2011, citizenship scholar Peter Spiro asked, “[w]ill international law colonize th[is] last bastion of sovereign discretion?” Ten years later, this essay reframes the question, asking whether the international law of Indigenous Peoples’ rights will “decolonize” the discretion, by encouraging its exercise in ways that respect and enable Indigenous connections to their traditional land. It considers this possibility in light of two recent cases decided by courts in Australia and Canada, both of which ascribe a distinctive legal status to non-citizen Indigenous persons: Love v. Commonwealth, Thoms v Commonwealth (“Love-Thoms,” Australian High Court) and R. v. Desautel (“Desautel,” British Columbia Court of Appeal, currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada). In each case, the court in question recognized that some Indigenous non-citizens have constitutional rights to remain within the state's territory (and perhaps also a correlative right to enter it), by virtue of their pre-contact ancestral ties to land within the state's borders.

This essay outlines a quandary facing international investment dispute settlement (IIDS): the tension between the wish to curb “dual hatting” and the wish to increase the diversity of those appointed as arbitrators in IIDS cases. Thoughtful observers are concerned by the effect on IIDS, either in fact or as a matter of appearance, of lawyers who wear “dual hats”—one as arbitrator in IIDS cases, and a second as counsel representing clients in other IIDS matters. Concurrently, other thoughtful observers are concerned that appointments to IIDS predominantly go to a small cadre of established arbitrators caricatured as “pale, male and stale.” This concern has prompted efforts to increase the pool of female and minority arbitrators. However, these individuals would be drawn primarily from the ranks of younger practicing lawyers who must continue to practice unless and until they receive sufficient appointments to make full-time service as arbitrators economically feasible.

In “Achieving Sex-Representative International Court Benches,” Nienke Grossman begins with embarrassing statistics. Despite decades of progress on gender equality, women are still quite scarce on international benches. Grossman reframes the debate on gender equity in a powerful way. Most promisingly, she suggests that greater meritocracy and greater gender equity go hand in hand. As she argues, “international judgeships are often used to reward political loyalty” and “political horse-trading among states” abounds. For these reasons, reforms to broaden the pool of candidates and to increase the transparency of the selection process would also result in the appointment of more women, in all likelihood. In addition, Grossman puts forth a provocative legal claim—she argues that “states are legally required to take steps to understand and remedy the paucity of women judges on most international court benches.”

In June 2019, protests erupted in Hong Kong after its government proposed an extradition agreement with mainland China. Alarmed by the protests, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party announced that it would consider new national security measures for Hong Kong. On June 30, 2020, China's National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) passed the “Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.” While the law was under consideration, the United States responded by declaring that Hong Kong was no longer significantly autonomous from mainland China and beginning the process of ending Hong Kong's special status under U.S. law. The United States and its allies continue to criticize Hong Kong's deteriorating autonomy from China, pointing to the postponement of elections in Hong Kong as further evidence.

Explaining the drivers of compliance with international law has been a central concern of international lawyers (and many others) for decades. As international agreements have proliferated—exact numbers are elusive, but there may be 75,000 or more—understanding compliance has only grown in importance. In previous work we each have explored the question of compliance, focusing on the conceptual difficulties with compliance as a measure of effectiveness, the role of reputation, and other factors. The literature on compliance with international law is rich, interdisciplinary, and, at this point, over three decades old. In Rewarding in International Law, Anne van Aaken and Betül Simsek seek to offer a new perspective on the enduring topic of compliance: that of rewarding. In this essay, we suggest that rewards, when properly defined, are a conceptually interesting but empirically rare tool in the arsenal of states seeking to improve compliance with international law.

Domestic policy choices concerning the non-medical use of cannabis are generating increased interest in what has been usefully called the global drug prohibition regime. Commentators are questioning whether the UN-based treaty system can accommodate national policy approaches that deviate from the regime's prohibitive ethos. As tension around cannabis “legalization” builds it becomes ever more urgent to relieve systemic pressure, a process to which inter se treaty modification may be key.

If a defeated Japan is to be “ pared back to her volcanic core,” China will be a prime beneficiary. The Cairo Declaration promised to return to her Formosa, the Pescadores, and Manchuria. But what of those parts of the Japanese colonial empire which were not Chinese? Some other arrangements must be made for Korea and the Japanese mandated islands. Liquidation of Italy's African empire raises similar questions.

Many applications of international law receive but little attention from the general public. Unpublicized or little-publicized settlements involving relatively obscure persons and comparatively small amounts of money tend to be undramatic. They may seem of little importance during a period of major, kaleidoscopic developments in a worldwide conflict. But the fact remains that in numerous instances rules have become the bases for the disposition of practical questions which were of importance to the individuals immediately involved and of some concern to their respective governments. Collectively, these dispositions may help to attest the vitality of the principle of legality. At a time when the world situation puts in question the very fundamental elements of an international legal system, there may still be justification for drawing attention to the manner in which settlements of private claims against governments have been and are effected.

For more than a decade, U.S. courts have struggled to develop a common law immunity regime to govern suits brought against foreign government officials, and they are now divided on a number of issues, including the extent to which they should defer to the executive branch and whether to recognize a jus cogens exception. This Editorial Comment considers a more conceptual division in the courts, between an “effect-of-judgment” approach that would confer immunity only when the judgment that the plaintiff is seeking would be directly enforceable against the foreign state, and a broader “nature-of-act” approach that would confer immunity whenever the plaintiff's case is challenging conduct carried out on behalf of the state. The Comment argues in favor of the nature-of-act approach and explains why analogies in this context to domestic civil rights litigation are misplaced.

Russia's aggression against Ukraine has brought into focus the growing significance of open-source information for international legal processes. Enabled by novel digital technologies, civil society actors have seized the opportunity provided by the vast amount of publicly available evidence to counter-narrate Russia's pretexts to justify its invasion within the deliberative bodies of the United Nations. This Essay explains the potential of this emerging practice to influence international legal discourse by increasing the costs for actors who base their conduct on false factual claims.