Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, a line was crossed in the history of terrorism and political violence—many things we had until then taken for granted were lost. This paper analyzes the relationship between international terrorism and human rights and examines how these two concepts—which some suggest are antithetical—might appropriately be spoken of in the same breath even in the aftermath of those terrible attacks. The overarching thesis is that counter-terror efforts must be approached in a way that endeavours to achieve a positive relation to, and co-existence with, the system of human rights at both international and national levels. In this connection, Singapore's approach to counter-terrorism will be considered, providing food for thought on how far it achieves a balance between security and liberty.

The history of international law is often told in terms of the rise and fall of great powers or as a mechanism of colonial subjugation. To the extent that these accounts consider justice, it is usually to demonstrate its absence. This paper points out that justice has been integral to the evolution of international law in the era of the United States. Individuals and members of civil society in the US and Europe have influenced systemic developments in international law through their efforts to realize a vision of justice in interstate relations, their vision being of a body of international law and a world court which together obviate the need for war. To suggest the possibility of an historical narrative constructed around justice is not to deny the validity of other histories focused on inequitable relations of power, but to point to the scope for nuance in the frameworks within which we portray international law and its history.

Recently increased tensions across East Asia over territorial and maritime disputes show glimpses of brinkmanship. However, the past experiences of Western colonization and Japan's imperialism within the region add complexity to those disputes challenging our understanding of legal debates surrounding territorial and maritime disputes. This article examines the extent to which the relevant rules of international law are capable of providing “justice” by accommodating the unique historical contexts in the region in settling highly politically sensitive territorial and maritime claims. It finds that the existing rules of international law are more than capable of accommodating the peculiar historical contexts of East Asia in the resolution of territorial and maritime disputes, whilst acknowledging that certain ambiguities in the law are contributing to some of the current tensions that have arisen over these disputes.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to prosecute crimes that “threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world”. Maritime piracy has a long history as a threat to international security and was in fact the first international crime. Yet piracy was excluded from the Rome Statute. In the years since the drafting of the Rome Statute, piracy has increased dramatically to become more like the threat it was in the “Golden Age of Piracy”. Criminal accountability for piracy has been minimal, due to logistical and jurisdictional difficulties. This paper offers an analysis of the potential of the ICC for prosecuting pirates: why it should be considered as a potential forum for ensuring criminal accountability for piracy, how piracy fits within the ICC's jurisdiction, and whether or not piracy should be added to the Rome Statute as a stand-alone crime or under the rubric of crimes against humanity.

Since the 1960s, over eighty international peoples’ tribunals have been established outside formal state and international structures. Many have drawn on the forms and procedures of state-sponsored international tribunals and investigated whether states, international organizations, and transnational corporations have violated established norms of international law, while also seeking to infuse it with more progressive values. This paper first provides an overview of the history of international peoples’ tribunals in Asia, then examines three tribunals that have focused on situations in Asia. We argue that not only do peoples’ tribunals respond to a perceived gap in official structures of accountability, but they also perform other functions. These include building solidarity and networks, and recording and memorializing otherwise unacknowledged experiences. Further, such tribunals not only engage in holding states and others accountable informally but also articulate claims about the right of civil society to “own”, interpret, and develop international law.

In 2005, Matthew Craven noted that “[t]he phenomenon of unequal treaties [has] largely evaporated as an issue from the domain of international law”. In Craven's opinion, international lawyers have demonstrated an “unwillingness to engage effectively with the problem of equality”. This paper argues that states have, in fact, addressed issues of inequity in recent treaty negotiations. When states have had to unite around common goals, various methods of according special and differential treatment have been used to address concerns about substantive equality. Drawing upon precedents from environmental law and international trade, this paper proposes the recognition of a principle of equality in treaty relations. It is suggested that the persistence of inequality should provide grounds for seeking the renegotiation of a treaty, and that a general principle in favour of remedying unacceptable levels of inequality should be applied to build flexibility and stability into treaty relationships.

A financial transactions tax (FTT) is a tax on wholesale capital market transactions, which civil society has long advocated for on grounds of social justice. This so-called “Robin Hood Tax” would take from the rich and give to the poor. Revenue estimates for a global FTT of 0.05 percent are around US$500 billion per annum. One-quarter of this revenue stream can achieve the first six Millennium Development Goals relating to poverty, health, and education. Even if the developed countries retain all of the revenue raised, the impost would see financial services institutions making a fairer contribution to the societies in which they operate. Thus, as an instrument of justice, the potential of an FTT is great—but, most of all, such a tax will enhance the operations of contemporary financial markets substantially. This paper explores the potential of such a tax, the arguments for and against it, and its feasibility.

The international climate regime is in the process of negotiating a legally binding instrument concerning Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). The paper starts by exploring the complex web of decisions and advices that currently regulate REDD+ initiatives within the international climate regime. This is followed by an analysis of justice issues raised by non-state actors in the REDD+ international negotiations. The paper concludes by building on this analysis to identify some relevant considerations when seeking to design a just and legally binding REDD+ instrument. These considerations include: the impact of market- versus fund-based investment channels, the importance of defining a clear objective; the inclusion and role of international principles such as sovereignty, preventative action, common but differentiated responsibility, sustainable development, and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent; the appropriate design of REDD+ safeguards and the inclusion of grievance mechanisms within the instrument which provide guidance on resolving disputes associated with REDD+ investment.

The international anti-money laundering (AML) regime has developed and diffused rapidly in the last two decades. Most developing countries have engaged with the international AML regime under pressure from other states rather than on a voluntary basis.1 Establishing the national AML regime in these countries in compliance with international standards is very expensive, while the benefits are elusive.2 This paper reveals that the adoption of basically similar AML norms by many developing countries results from the global diffusion of the international AML regime through two major mechanisms: coercion (by powerful economies and international institutions) and socialization (through tactical communications). This paper points out that although the AML regime of Vietnam was established under external coercion and socialization, domestic factors determine the extent of compliance with international standards. In Vietnam, a determinative factor is the political willingness of the Communist Party in fighting money laundering.