Water-mediated claims in both international law and domestic law are often framed around, or adjudicated based on land-centred principles. In Canada, too, such claims tend to be judicially assessed through land-centric concepts. This approach has significant implications for Indigenous law and related claims to water-mediated spaces. It also has consequences for both international law and domestic law, particularly with respect to how aqua nullius and similar Eurocentric concepts are disguised and used in settler-colonial states like Canada. Accordingly, this article urges a critical engagement with Indigenous law and similar cosmologies on water in a manner that foregrounds the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and in re-reading how the UNDRIP is incorporated and implemented in Canada.

Poursuite de l’invasion de l’Ukraine, guerre dans la bande de Gaza, crise alimentaire, transition énergétique sans précédent, rééquilibrage géostratégique, montée du populisme, ingérence de toute sorte, explosion du recours à l’intelligence artificielle, inflation à maîtriser, voilà autant de traits caractérisant l’année 2023 et ayant eu le potentiel de redéfinir les relations commerciales mondiales. Dans ce contexte, mu par une nouvelle diplomatie pragmatique,1 le Canada tente d’innover tout en renouant avec son rôle d’antan: préserver ses partenaires usuels tout en développant de nouvelles relations d’opportunité (au risque parfois de piler sur ses valeurs), réinvestir les enceintes internationales avec le dessein de les moderniser, diversifier ses relations en déployant des forces diplomatiques dans de nouveaux territoires et réaffirmer sa souveraineté face à toute sorte de menaces que ce soit en Arctique ou dans le cadre électoral canadien. Ce contexte a nécessairement eu des impacts sur les choix que fait le Canada en matière commerciale.

Jurisdiction simpliciter — non-resident defendant — claim for injury to person or damage to property or reputation — jurisdiction found not to exist

La Cour pénale internationale s’est penchée récemment sur la question nouvelle de la réparation des préjudices transgénérationnels. Dans son analyse, la cour s’appuie sur un type de préjudice qui dépasse la victime immédiate et qui en vise une qui n’a vécu l’événement traumatique original, que par l’entremise d’un transfert générationnel. En ce qui concerne la réparation, il faut établir si ce préjudice est spécifique et autonome justifiant une reconnaissance et, par conséquent, une mesure de réparation. La question de réparer un préjudice transgénérationnel est d’actualité et encore peu étudiée en droit pénal international. Le présent article vise à apporter une contribution dans ce domaine en examinant la façon dont le préjudice transgénérationnel est juridiquement élaboré dans certains exemples s’inscrivant dans un contexte de violations massives et graves des droits humains. Enfin, l’article analyse la jurisprudence de la Cour pénale internationale, mettant en lumière les difficultés et les dilemmes générés par la reconnaissance des préjudices transgénérationnels dans la sphère juridique pénale.

While many investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) proceedings based on international investment agreements have dealt, directly or incidentally, with environmental issues, state measures relating to the mitigation and adaptation to climate change have been subject to a small number of reported cases. This article demonstrates that there is a significant gap between the number of investor-state disputes having a direct relevance with climate change, on the one hand, and the number of such cases that have actually raised climate change as a material legal or factual issue. In addition, arbitral tribunals faced with disputes related to measures or sectors that are of direct relevance to climate action have, to date, virtually never engaged in any sort of substantial analysis of international climate change treaties and related instruments, rules, or practices. Against this backdrop, this article will explore ways for arbitrators and parties to ISDS proceedings to better consider the climate regime — in particular, the Paris Agreement and instruments arising therefrom — in ISDS proceedings beyond its current limited role as an element of context. While the literature has mostly focused on integrating climate change concerns in ISDS, this article goes further by exploring how states’ international climate obligations could play a greater role in the adjudication of investor-state disputes, including by providing states with a justification for implementing more ambitious regulations as well as tribunals with guidance for interpreting substantive obligations in investment treaties.

Le présent article se propose de concevoir l’influence de la notion de légitimité au-delà du rôle lui étant communément attribué en droit international humanitaire (DIH), en s’intéressant particulièrement à la relation entre ce dernier et les causes de la guerre, la nature des acteurs impliqués dans les conflits armés ainsi que les motivations des parties. En remettant notamment en question de l’idée d’une stricte séparation entre jus in bello et jus ad bellum, il est soutenu que les tentatives visant à isoler le DIH de ces questions de légitimité sont à la fois vaines, mais également à rebours de l’évolution et des logiques du régime. Il est en revanche défendu que la notion de légitimité en DIH se manifeste à travers deux modes de légitimation — l’un dérivant du statut, l’autre de la cause — à partir desquels la distribution de droits, devoirs, immunités, privilèges ou encore statuts s’opère et se voit justifiée au sein du régime. Ce faisant, de nombreux discours empruntant au second registre, souvent qualifiés d’aberrations du point de vue du DIH, ou dont la nature juridique est contestée, s’avèrent finalement être des arguments juridiques parfaitement valides et ancrés dans l’évolution et les logiques du DIH.

Cet article analyse l’apport de l’Afrique à la matérialisation et à l’évolution du jus cogens, cet étalon normatif codifié en 1969 dans la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités. La notion de jus cogens avait trouvé une audience auprès des pays africains dès son apparition, leur permettant ainsi de dénoncer les travers de la colonisation, ainsi que le droit international y relatif. Par la suite et en raison de ses implications répressives, elle a reçu une application contrastée de la part même des États qui avaient pesé en faveur de son adoption. Cette fragile harmonie pousse à conclure que l’Afrique entretient des rapports contradictoires avec le jus cogens, ce dernier étant perçu comme attentatoire à sa souveraineté.

L’année 2022 est marquée par l’accélération de l’apurement du contentieux d’investissement visant le Canada sur le fondement de l’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain entre le gouvernement du Canada, le gouvernement des États-Unis et le gouvernement du Mexique (ALÉNA).1 Pas moins de quatre affaires connaissent leur dénouement avec des sentences arbitrales qui rejettent toutes les réclamations des investisseurs américains, dont une sentence très attendue dans l’affaire Lone Pine Resources c Canada,2 concernant l’interdiction par le Québec du gaz de schiste. Avec la fin en 2023 du régime transitoire de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États (RDIE) entre le Canada et les États-Unis, prévu par l’Accord entre le Canada, les États-Unis et le Mexique (ACÉUM),3 ce contentieux devrait se tarir de manière durable puisque le RDIE cessera alors de s’appliquer entre les deux pays. La pratique conventionnelle du Canada en matière d’investissement continue de stagner et aucun nouvel accord n’est à signaler. Sur le plan interne toutefois, le gouvernement fédéral dépose le projet de loi C-34 qui propose la plus importante réforme de la Loi sur Investissement Canada4 depuis l’ajout d’un mécanisme d’examen des investissements étrangers relatif à la sécurité nationale en 2009.5 Le projet de loi C-34 et l’affaire Lone Pine Resources font l’objet d’une analyse détaillée dans la chronique cette année. Un tour d’horizon des principaux autres faits marquants de 2022 est d’abord effectué.

Following a three-year post-termination transition period to bring investor-state arbitration disputes, the investment protections afforded by Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) finally expired in June 2023. Chapter 11 was one of the most litigated, cited, commented, and copied investment treaties. An important, but largely ignored, part of its legacy is how the making of NAFTA Chapter 11 shaped its subsequent successful diffusion. Combining traditional legal assessment with computational text-as-data analysis, this article shows how the give and take during the negotiations generated buy-in on the part of Mexico and Canada and emulation by Latin American countries who helped to spread NAFTA Chapter 11 language globally. The link between the making and diffusion of NAFTA Chapter 11 highlights the power of negotiated compromise: sharing the pen with others may sometimes be the most effective way to write the rules that come to shape the world.

Le jugement rendu par la Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni le 22 novembre 2022 dans le Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 n’est pas passé inaperçu au Canada et au Québec. Sans doute est-ce en raison du fait que le tribunal de dernier ressort du Royaume-Uni était invité à statuer sur une question relative à l’organisation d’un référendum sur l’indépendance, comme s’y était penché la Cour suprême du Canada dans son Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec, mais aussi et surtout parce que le tribunal suprême britannique fait référence à ce dernier Renvoi dans le développement qu’il consacre au droit international. Le présent article situe le Scotland Act Reference dans son contexte politique et examine ensuite le jugement de la Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni sous l’angle du droit international.

This article addresses the challenge of conceptualizing the practice of religious proselytism in the context of international human rights law and its significance for the law of religious freedom. The author examines the evolving approach taken to religious proselytism within the landscape of human rights law, revealing that important aspects of religious freedom risk being lost given complex positive and negative views on proselytization. The author then explores the concept of human dignity and argues that there are relational and interactive dimensions associated with human dignity that are obscured in the international legal discourse of religious freedom. Recovering these dimensions of dignity will help address religious proselytization in international human rights law and reinvigorate the law of religious freedom.

The text of the US Constitution appears to require that individual states, to the extent that they are ever allowed to conclude agreements with foreign governments, must obtain congressional approval. In practice, however, states conclude many agreements with foreign governments, including with Canada and its provinces, and they almost never seek congressional approval. This practice is an illustration of both the importance of federalism in US foreign relations and the significant role played by historical practice in informing US constitutional interpretation. The phenomenon of state international agreements assumed new prominence in 2019 when the Trump administration sued to challenge a climate change agreement that the state of California had made with Québec. Despite this challenge, for the most part, neither Congress nor the executive branch has resisted the growth in state international agreements. This acquiescence could change as countries like China target US states in an effort to work around strained relations with the US national government and as states become more assertive in resisting the national government’s foreign policies. In any event, the practice of state international agreements unapproved by Congress rests in part on a distinction between binding and non-binding agreements that deserves greater scrutiny under both domestic and international law.

Au sein de l’Organisation des États américains (OÉA),1 la Commission interaméricaine des Droits de l’Homme (CIDH) et la Cour interaméricaines des Droits de l’Homme sont les deux principaux organes chargés de veiller à la protection des droits de la personne dans les Amériques.2 Ces instances sont habilitées à instruire des recours individuels intentés contre des États membres et portant sur des allégations de violations de la Convention américaine relative aux Droits de l’Homme (CADH)3 et d’autres instruments interaméricains applicables.4 La présente chronique portera sur certaines décisions rendues par la cour pendant l’année 2022.

The expression “living resources” occurs thirty-eight times in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but the latter does not give any legal definition of the term. The integration of environmental law taxonomy, such as biodiversity, in the evolution of the law of the sea has added to confusion regarding the meaning of “marine living resources.” To clarify the meaning of this expression and its legal scope in the evolution of the law of the sea, it is necessary to analyze the context of its use in UNCLOS and, more broadly, in the legal regime governing marine resources. This article aims to clarify the origins and extent of the confusion regarding the meaning of marine living resources and to analyze how the use of a broader semantic field in different legal instruments and other sources of international law has shaped the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources.

In 2021, the United States challenged Canadian dairy import tariff rate quotas (TRQs) before the first state-to-state arbitration panel under Chapter 31 of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The panel held that the method of allocation of TRQs limited the US dairy industry’s access to the Canadian market and therefore violated CUSMA provisions. However, the panel also acknowledged that the Canadian supply management system for dairy products is a unique regulatory framework for production control, pricing mechanisms, and import control. This article explores the case as a test of the functioning of the improved CUSMA dispute settlement process and of Canada’s ability to protect its supply management system for dairy products from renewed pressure coming from its most important trade partner.

Over the last decade, there has been a spate of incidents in Canada and the United States involving Saudi Arabian nationals who, while out on bail for predominantly sexual crimes, were able to abscond from the countries despite having surrendered their passports. Investigation has revealed evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the government of Saudi Arabia has, in fact, assisted its nationals to escape on these occasions. This article makes the case that this kind of conduct amounts not just to unfriendly acts but also to infringements upon the territorial sovereignty of both states and serious breaches of the international law of jurisdiction. It surveys the possible remedies available to both injured states and, in light of the fact that neither state has sought any such remedy, examines possible remedial routes for the victims of the Saudi nationals’ crimes. It remarks upon the utter failure of either Canada or the United States to address these acts, concluding that such wilful neglect both corrodes sovereignty and undermines the will to address sexual crimes.

This article reviews the “gaps” that allow for the creation of the “offshore” in international law and argues that these are instead constituted by constraints on our spatial imaginary of law than by any “real” gaps between state jurisdictions. The modern practices of sovereignty by states and non-state actors are at odds with the implicit geography of international law that assumes a static and fixed concept of territory. By rethinking the relevant legal spaces of international law and the sovereign practices that constitute the supposedly deterritorialized offshore, we can see that the offshore is actually onshore somewhere; we can reterritorialize the supposed deterritorialized competences. This article identifies a desynchronization between state territories and the actual exercise of sovereignty that presents as pseudo deterritorialization. Yet if both the concept of sovereignty and the implicit geography of international law confirm and reinforce one another in international law discourse, international lawyers are blind to the changing “landscape” of sovereignty in international law.

When does an armed conflict end? When does the specific body of law applicable to such a situation — namely, international humanitarian law (IHL) — cease to apply? There is, to date, no clear-cut answer to these questions in treaty law but, rather, a functional approach to the matter. Anchored in wider research related to the temporal scope of applicability of IHL, this contribution demonstrates how the notion of the “general close of military operations,” which appears in Article 6, paragraph 2, of Geneva Convention IV and in Article 3(b) of Additional Protocol I, fulfills the function of determining that any armed conflict has ended.

The United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies play an important role in defining the scope and the nature of non-citizens’ rights. This article offers a critical overview of the UN human rights case law from 2008 to 2018 pertaining to non-citizens — notably undocumented migrants, refused asylum seekers, and permanent residents ordered deported — in Canada. It examines the jurisprudence of the three UN human rights treaty bodies recognized by Canada as having competence to receive and consider individual complaints — namely, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The purpose of this examination is two-fold. First, it intends to foster a better understanding of the cases lodged by non-citizens before the UN human rights treaty bodies. The second aim is to explore the substantive issues that the UN committees’ jurisprudence on non-citizens reveals about Canada’s immigration decision-making and enforcement. It is argued that some groups of non-citizens in Canada are at risk of being deported to persecution or hardship in violation of the non-refoulement principle and Canada’s international human rights obligations. The article illuminates several loopholes identified by the UN treaty bodies in Canada’s immigration and refugee protection system that heighten the risk of refoulement.