This article reviews the history and politics of the English foreign act of State and non-justiciability doctrines in light of recent judgments in Belhaj and Rahmatullah. It argues that the doctrines have a political unconscious—a term borrowed from literary theorist Fredric Jameson—and that an appreciation of this should inform the Supreme Court's approach to the forthcoming appeals.

This article examines the extent to which EU and European human rights law, following the enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998, have changed the manner in which English courts use comparative law in the private law field. Despite legislative intervention rendering EU law part of the national legal system and requiring the courts ‘to take into account’ the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, there remains evidence that private law courts retain a preference for comparisons within the common law world. This article will examine, with reference to a number of recent empirical studies, the reasons for this position and what this signifies in terms of future comparative law reasoning.

Following a large-scale disaster, such as a major earthquake, tsunami or cyclone, tens of thousands of persons are often displaced, suffer from food shortages and in need of medical assistance. In situations in which the State affected by the disaster does not meet the needs of the affected persons itself, humanitarian assistance from outside the State might be required. This article considers the role of consent to external humanitarian assistance on the part of the affected State. As there is no single overarching treaty in the area of humanitarian assistance in situations of disaster, the article explores the role of consent in the various disaster-specific, subject-specific and region-specific treaties as well as in the soft law instruments in the area. Although the instruments take seemingly different approaches to the subject, a common standard is identified, namely that consent on the part of the affected State is required before external assistance can be provided but that consent cannot be arbitrarily withheld. The article then goes on to give content to the arbitrary withholding standard, breaking it down into its substantive and procedural elements. These include the meaning of the term ‘arbitrary’; the requirement to provide a reason for the withholding of consent; legitimate grounds for withholding consent; and the actor that assesses the justification. Regard is had for State practice in the context of disasters as well as other areas of the law in which similar tests are used.

The question of whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality constitutes persecution for the purposes of a determination of refugee status has received increased attention in recent jurisprudence. However, no systematic argument has been made to date on the ordinary meaning of words, context, object and purpose of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as it applies to stateless refugees. This is an important question because the absence of determination procedures and a protection regime specifically for stateless persons in many jurisdictions makes refugee and/or complementary protection the only options. This article examines existing landmark judicial decisions worldwide, relevant UN documents, and academic writing on whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality, either on its own or when taken with other forms of harm, amounts to persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and if so on what grounds. It concludes by suggesting when (arbitrary) deprivation of nationality should lead to a finding of persecution, based on good practice, and points to a global consensus on a new rights perspective concerning nationality.

This paper seeks to explore the relationship between the framework of transition and the enactment of a new constitution for Egypt. It does so by using the relatively under explored concept of transitional constitutionalism, interrogating some of the key claims on which transitional constitutionalism is based, and questioning their application in the Egyptian context. By doing this the paper explores the broader paradox of the imposition of a framework of transition that is rooted in principles of liberalism in the context where liberalism is far from the agreed or prevailing political model.

EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta has been the first maritime operation of the European Union and it has certainly been successful given the significant decrease of pirate attacks off the Somali coast. However, various issues have been raised concerning its legal basis under international law and its legal framework, including questions of responsibility. These issues are particularly interesting since the EU has a more integrated legal order than other organizations involved in such operations (eg UN, NATO). The present article attempts to address these issues against the background of international and European law. Even though the legal basis of the Operation is clear from a European law perspective, there have been certain misconceptions concerning the legal basis of the Operation under international law. The delineation of the Operation's legal framework requires a careful analysis of the rules applicable to each of its phases and of its addressees, since each phase is subject to different rules which are binding on different actors. Finally, there is an extensive discussion of questions of responsibility, which were heavily influenced by the applicable Rules of Engagement and of the actual conduct of the Operation. The conclusion is that, at least on the high seas, responsibility should primarily rest with the flag States rather than with the EU. However, in most cases the EU is indirectly responsible for violations of international law, except in cases where suspected pirates are transferred to third States pursuant to EU agreements with such States, in which case it bears primarily responsibility.

This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has clarified its jurisprudence on how the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Article 13 exceptions are to be applied in a manner that is consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also analyses recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights on how the courts in the EU are to handle child abduction cases where the courts of the habitual residence have made use of their power under Article 11 of Brussels IIa.

The issues of State and diplomatic immunity in cases involving persons employed by foreign States in embassies or consulates or engaged directly by diplomats remain controversial. The focus of this article is on recent developments in European law, in particular under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Brussels I Regulation and the Charter of the European Union, the effect of which has been to enhance the rights of employees of foreign States. Analysis is also made of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property and the current domestic practice of States with the aim of identifying the present international law standard on State immunity and embassy and consular employment. Employees of diplomats, however, remain inadequately protected and this article considers possible strategies for improving their position.

This article looks at the origins, purposes and conflicts of national interests and policies that were the primary influences in shaping the substance of the Arms Trade Treaty, which came into force at the end of 2014. It then proceeds to a more legally focussed analysis and, having identified several important issues which have had to remain undiscussed, concentrates on detailed examination and evaluation of the most important provisions of substance. These are firstly the scope of the Treaty—defining the equipment or materiel covered (Article 2). There follows analysis of the provisions which contain the obligations on exporting States, ranging from absolute prohibitions (Article 6) to ‘export assessments’ (Article 7), which in practice will be the most frequently applicable. The paper concludes by identifying several valuable provisions in the Treaty whilst also highlighting several significant weaknesses and omissions. It contends that evaluation of the Treaty's likely contribution to controlling the recognized evils of the arms trade is premature at this stage and, further, that efforts towards that end must focus on the practice and law of domestic administrative implementation, rather than international law.

Comparing the EU law principle of loyalty with international law good faith and the duty of federal good faith in German constitutional law (Bundestreue), this article contributes to the discussion on the nature of the EU legal order and its relationship to international law more generally by finding that EU loyalty is in essence a specific incarnation of the international law principle that treaties are to be interpreted in good faith. At the same time, it challenges the assumption that international law good faith differs fundamentally from federal good faith. To this end, the article points at historical links between both, and posits that good faith is in essence a principle of constructive interpretation, the strictures of which increase with the level of integration of the legal order in which it is applied.

This article offers a fresh examination of the distinction drawn in international humanitarian law (IHL) between international and non-international armed conflicts. In particular, it considers this issue from the under-explored perspective of the influence of international human rights law (IHRL). It is demonstrated how, over time, the effect of IHRL on this distinction in IHL has changed dramatically. Whereas traditionally IHRL encouraged the partial elimination of the distinction between types of armed conflict, more recently it has been invoked in debates in a manner that would preserve what remains of the distinction. By exploring this important issue, it is hoped that the present article will contribute to the ongoing debates regarding the future development of the law of non-international armed conflict.

This article analyses the source, nature, and use of unilateral, non-statutory executive powers, frequently employed as a governance tool but rarely studied in a comparative context. Exercised in the absence of direct statutory authorization, such powers are often invoked by executives in emergency and foreign affairs contexts, but are equally central to domestic policy-making. Unilateral executive power challenges two central democratic values that support the separation of powers ideal: representation and deliberation. Different structural treatments of these powers are considered through a comparison of three constitutional regimes, those of the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel. Despite material structural differences between these systems, the emerging patterns are similar enough to support the argument that direct law-making by the executive is an unavoidable element of the political sphere. Developing a template for comparison analysis, this article shows that a pattern of functional convergence has emerged, unsupported by overt transplantation or borrowing between these systems. The results set a possible challenge to the growing recognition of global world constitutionalism, at least in structural-institutional contexts.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the best interests principle codified in Article 3 in particular, is playing an increasingly significant role in decisions involving the admission or removal of a child from a host State. This article examines the extent to which the best interest principle may provide an independent source of international protection. That protection may, for instance, proscribe the removal of a child from a host State notwithstanding that the child is ineligible for protection as a refugee or protection under the more traditional non-refoulement obligations in international human rights law.

Global experimentalist governance has emerged within and across a number of international regulatory regimes, but its potential contribution to the global governance of climate change remains largely unexplored. This article investigates the opportunities and barriers to developing global experimentalist governance approaches in the international regulation of climate change technologies, focusing on the recent framework for marine geoengineering under the London Dumping Protocol. It argues that, in the face of the limits of international law in dealing with uncertainty, multilevel distribution of power and regulatory disconnection, global experimentalist governance is attractive to catalyse adaptability, iterative learning, participation and cooperation. Such approach can help rethink the way international law deals with technological development, by emphasizing its problem-solving function.

The phenomenon of child labour is on the rise in Europe in the wake of the economic crisis. Specific action in tackling this practice faces a range of challenges including the often hidden nature of the work, cultural attitudes and gendered constructions of the role of children especially in domestic settings. This article explores the range of international standards and efforts made by numerous human rights tribunals aimed at combating the practice, with particular emphasis on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It concludes that the Court has drawn erratically on its standard methodologies (including the comparative technique) in interpreting Article 4 of the ECHR, thus providing limited guidance to European States in getting to grips with child labour.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) had sought to augment intellectual property (IP) enforcement practices, to counter the proliferation of counterfeit and pirate goods and to regulate digital infringements. This paper examines the collapse of ACTA and challenges the traditional orientation of the debate concerning the tension between the ‘enforcement’ and ‘development’ agendas. The ACTA negotiating partners, mainly developed states, created a forum outside the aegis of international IP norm-making bodies to avoid the distractions posed by developing countries whilst promoting an alternative ‘enforcement agenda’. Despite this effort, ACTA collapsed from ‘within’. The paper argues that ACTA failed due to the extemporaneous emergence of a random configuration of civil society groups, academics, ‘netizens’ and legislators within ACTA negotiating countries independently pursuing an agenda that can be called the ‘network agenda’. This new agenda aimed to protect the right to privacy, data protection and freedom of speech within the digital medium. While current debates on the global IP legal order are generally limited to, and characterised by the Global North-South considerations, the ‘network agenda’ cuts longitudinally through territorial configurations and squarely places the interests of the IP owner against those of the public. Consequently, the paper highlights the potential of the network agenda to dilute the existing polarities in the IP debate and impact on the dynamics of international intellectual property law by creating an inclusive platform within IP discourse that attempts to integrate colliding rationalities present within the world society.

The benefits of a ‘holistic’ approach to transitional justice are enhanced by considering how synergies between different transitional mechanisms may be optimized. Drawing upon multiple examples, this article explores the potential contribution of truth seeking to reparation efforts at a normative, institutional and operational level. The article emphasizes the importance of an awareness of the reparative potential of truth seeking on the part of those implicated in its design and implementation, as well as an appreciation of the influence of contextual factors on a delicate process. It cannot be conceived of simply as a technocratic exercise, but as an inherent part of empowering victims.

With the increased awareness of national security concerns associated with unauthorized disclosure of State secrets, the legal protection of State secrets on national security grounds has assumed renewed significance, while raising ever growing concerns about its impact on freedom of information. Between these competing policy concerns lies a discrete area of law that defines and protects State secrets from unauthorized communication or disclosure. This article aims to ascertain the actual State practice concerning State secrets protection on national security grounds across different countries, and examines common challenges to the delimitation of national security grounds for State secrets protection in light of the changing national security environment.

Although there is a broadly similar core of human rights law and courts in different jurisdictions face strikingly similar questions, the use of comparative law in the human rights context remains controversial. Reference to foreign human rights materials is regarded as undemocratic, selective and misleading. Rather than searching for a single ‘right answer’, or expecting convergence, this article addresses these challenges from a deliberative perspective. A deliberative approach requires decisions to be taken on the basis of reasons which are thorough and persuasive. Even where outcomes diverge, there need to be good reasons, whether textual, institutional, or cultural. Comparative materials constitute an important contribution to this process. Part I critically assesses various alternative potential functions of comparative law. Part II develops the deliberative model while Part III addresses the main critiques of comparative law. Part IV tests the deliberative approach against a selection of cases dealing with two particularly challenging issues confronted by courts in different jurisdictions, namely the use of substantive principles such as dignity, and the application of justification or limitation clauses in the context of prisoners' right to vote. Case law is drawn from countries which already cite each other and which have broadly similar institutional frameworks: the USA, Canada, South Africa, India, Australia, the UK, New Zealand and the European Court of Human Rights to the extent that it too considers comparative law.

The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts have appeared in a small but steady trickle of investment treaty arbitrations over the last decade. This article considers the use of the Principles by investment tribunals on questions of both domestic law and international law. It suggests that reference to the Principles can play an important legitimating role on questions of domestic law, but that this should not replace reference to the applicable law. On questions of international law, reference to the Principles may be justified by resort to the general principles of law. However, the article contends that there is only a limited role for the UNIDROIT Principles where the primary and secondary rules of investment protection are already found in treaties and custom. In addition, while general principles have historically been drawn from domestic private law, there is increasing recognition that general principles of public law are more relevant to investment arbitration. Given this, arbitrators resolving questions of international law must be cautious in references to the UNIDROIT Principles, a quintessentially private law instrument.