The global impacts of COVID-19 have been calamitous, unleashing widespread human suffering and exacerbating health crises, all while worsening pre-existing inequalities and transgressing fundamental human rights. Despite earnest pleas from the United Nations and developing nations for an equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, these appeals were largely unheeded. Instead, major pharmaceutical manufacturers and high-income countries (HICs) had maintained a stranglehold on vaccine technology through the safeguarding of intellectual property rights (IPRs), leading to exorbitant pricing and preferential distribution to affluent regions. This vaccine hoarding has left low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with delayed and insufficient supplies, endangering the lives of the most vulnerable. The stringent enforcement of IPRs mechanisms, rather than aligning with international human rights obligations, has further marginalised the right to life, health, and access to vaccines and medicines, particularly in LMICs. This study ardently advocates for a policy shift that promotes the decolonisation of human rights in the context of IPRs and global health law.

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive legal analysis, reminding the reader of the missing roles and potential of the the Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC]. Interstate disputes threaten the very existence of the GCC. Moreover, they call into question the GGC's mechanisms for co-operation and for ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes. For instance, the GCC's Charter, commercial arbitration rules, and the Basic Law of the Economic Judiciary Commission all provide provisions for peacefully settling disputes between GCC Member States and their citizens. GCC states are also members of the League of Arab States [Arab League], another important regional organization with dispute settlement procedures. However, GCC and Arab League judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms have not been invoked to date, arguably because the states prefer a diplomatic settlement. This paper reviews the GCC's mechanisms for co-operation and dispute settlement, referencing public international law to formulate recommendations to reform the GCC.

This article argues that the dovetailing economic, geopolitical, and security interests that underpin the Belt and Road Initiative demands a dispute resolution mechanism that focuses on broader interests and legal rights. Using the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a case study, it identifies the conditions in which Chinese investors could have initiated an investment arbitration but did not. This can be explained by the rights-based orientation of investment treaties failing to reflect the interests of multi-project initiatives. Instead, alternative methods of home state intervention, such as state-funded political risk insurance, are used to protect investors. In other words, the political economy of CPEC investments refuses to utilize hard law mechanisms. Given this context, mediation may be a viable alternative. These circumstances accelerate the trend towards “de-legalization”, which is often cited as an inevitable consequence of the emerging “geoeconomic order” but suggests that reasons other than national security are the cause.

The International Court of Justice [ICJ] delivered its Judgment on Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) in 2019, finding Pakistan in breach of its obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963. Thus, Pakistan is under a continuing obligation to provide, through the means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration [ERR] of Jadhav's conviction and sentence. This paper comments on the ICJ's Jadhav Judgment and its implications for Pakistan and India. It also evaluates the legal option if India is not satisfied with Pakistan's implementation of the ERR process effectively. In this situation, India can approach the ICJ again. This paper finds that the possibilities of India's request to be admissible before the ICJ under Article 60 of its Statute are relatively higher than the possibilities of its successful adjudication on the merits.

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice [ICJ] on the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 has been hailed as a major victory by the government of Mauritius and by representatives of the Chagossians who were forcibly removed from the islands to make way for the establishment of an American military facility on the island of Diego Garcia at the height of the Cold War. The opinion was categorical: the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968. The UK lost on every single argument it made before the Court and is under an obligation to bring its administration of the Chagos Archipelago to an end “as rapidly as possible”. This comment focuses on what the ICJ said about self-determination, and whether the Advisory Opinion could have consequences for future cases at the Court.

This paper considers the international legal implications of certain civil lawsuits that recently resulted in Japanese companies being ordered to pay compensation to Korean victims of forced labour, focusing specifically on whether investor-state arbitration could provide a means of redress against judgments affecting those companies. After identifying the jurisdictional hurdles that those companies might face were they to challenge those judgments before an Arbitral Tribunal, this paper explores the most relevant treaty protection disciplines that could be relied upon in bringing such challenges, and discusses the remedies that a competent Arbitral Tribunal could prescribe were it to find that those judgments were not in conformity with Korea's international obligations. Building on existing jurisprudence, this paper shows that investment arbitration may provide a means for offsetting the adverse consequences of Korean forced labour litigation, but also highlights a number of difficulties that the Japanese companies would face in pursuing such an avenue.

The first two decades of the twenty-first century saw the rapid rise of China in the global stage. During this period, China acquired valuable knowledge and expertise in International Economic Law (IEL), and expanded its trade and investments across the globe. The emergence of China has benefitted many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in terms of trade and investment; however, it is unclear whether IEL has contributed with the expansion of China's economic relations with LAC. This article aims to address this question by reviewing the strategies and mechanisms employed by China to promote trade, investment and development finance in the region. Its central argument is that China has opted to engage with LAC using an eclectic platform that combines hard law instruments and institutions as well as other soft law mechanisms.

Recent years have witnessed a rise in conflict between WTO members over the use of state subsidies designed to promote the renewable energy sector. Government subsidies are seen by domestic polic-ymakers as a key catalyst in attracting foreign investment, building capacity, and meeting other domestic policy goals. However, subsidies and other state incentivization programmes often carry trade-distorting effects. This paper examines the current state of WTO law and jurisprudence on subsidies extended to achieve environmental goals, in particular the Canada-Renewable Energy/Feed-in Tariff case and the more recent India-Solar Cells case which higlights the localization problem in the renewable energy sector. The case outcome shows that the WTO continues to maintain the status quo by prioritizing free trade over environmental considerations. The paper also discusses the possibility of reform in the GATT/WTO framework for promotion of renewable energy initiatives while maintaining the integrity of the system.

This article examines the 2008 Agreement for Co-operation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy [“123 Agreement”] within the context of the International Law Commission's (ILC) work on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law. Attention is paid to three issues in particular, namely how international environmental law has developed to interact with vaguely worded environmental protection provisions, such as those in the 123 Agreement, and the role of experts in this regard, the issue of civil nuclear liability, and the question of what international law might require for environmental impact assessments under the 123 Agreement to pass muster.

At the Kampala Review Conference in 2010, the adoption of the amendments to the Rome Statute laid the groundwork for the eventual prosecution of the crime of aggression. China, a non-State Party to the International Criminal Court, has articulated its concerns regarding the Court's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in legal terms. This paper examines the Chinese concerns regarding the role of the Security Council in the determination of an act of aggression and the definition of aggression primarily from a legal perspective. It argues that China has hovered back and forth between two conflicting legal positions on these issues during different periods in history according to its policy preference. This paper also considers the concerns of China from a policy perspective before concluding that the crime of aggression should not be regarded as an insurmountable barrier preventing China's accession to the ICC in years to come.

This paper discusses the Tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over the Philippine claim notwithstanding China’s publicly declared and law-based withholding of consent to the proceedings instituted by the Philippines. The Tribunal relied on its interpretation of China’s general commitment under Section 2 of Part XV (Settlement of Disputes) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,1 which was subjected to a Convention-authorized “exception” under Article 298 (China’s Declaration of 25 August 2006) that had selectively deprived any such proceeding of the essential element of China’s consent. The paper calls for inventive consideration of the methods available for resolving disputes, which might be seen currently as excessively influenced by procedures designed for resolving international trade disputes where only one party is a state.

The question whether humanitarian intervention may ever be lawfully carried out unilaterally outside the scope of Chapter VII of the UN Charter has captured the interest of many for years. Faced with legal formalist arguments under the UN Charter, those otherwise favouring the idea of humanitarian intervention often retreat into an apologist stance by conceding too quickly the lack of cogent legal justifications therefor, preferring instead to rely on moral and ethical reasoning. The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, while seemingly promising when first mooted in 2001, has since effectively been rendered obsolete as a justification for unilateral humanitarian intervention following the UN World Summit in 2005. By examining the role that equity plays in Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute, this paper advances the view that an aequitas ad bellum exists in international law that, under certain strict conditions, enables unilateral humanitarian intervention to be lawfully carried out.