Aliens — Expulsion of — Deportation — Right to Choose Place of Deportation — The Law of Argentine.

Territory — Indigenous people — Endorois community in Kenya — Kenya forcibly removing Endorois from ancestral land to create game reserve — Endorois community seeking redress — Whether Endorois distinct community — Definition of indigenous peoples — Consideration of subsidiary sources of international law or general principles in determining rights under African Charter — Relevant criteria — Sacred relationship to land — Self-identification — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 recognizing rights of peoples — Indigenous rights — Whether Endorois having collective rights — Right to practise religion — Right to property — Right to culture — Right to free disposition of natural resources — Right to development — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Articles 8, 14, 17, 21 and 22 — Whether Kenya violating African Charter by forcibly removing Endorois from ancestral lands without proper consultation and adequate compensation — African Commission’s recommendations

Human rights — Right to practise religion — Whether Endorois’ spiritual beliefs and ceremonial practices constituting a religion under African Charter and international law — Whether Kenya interfering with Endorois’ right to religious freedom by its actions or inactions — Whether Kenya violating Article 8 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981

Human rights — Right to property — Indigenous land rights — Whether land constituting property — Ownership of ancestral land — Whether special measures of protection appropriate — Whether Endorois land encroached upon by Kenya — Whether encroachment proportionate to public need and in compliance with national and international law — Whether adequate consultation and compensation — Whether Kenya violating Article 14 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981

Human rights — Right to culture — Requirement for State to protect and promote culture — Whether Kenya creating major threat to Endorois’ pastoralist way of life by displacement from ancestral land — Whether Kenya violating Article 17(2) and (3) of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981

Human rights — Right to free disposition of natural resources — Ownership of natural resources — Consultation — Participation in benefits — Prior environmental and social impact assessments — Requirement of adequate compensation or restitution of land — Whether Kenya violating Article 21 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981

Human rights — Right to development — Whether Kenya providing adequately for Endorois in development process — Whether consultation adequate — Whether Endorois effectively participating — Whether adequate compensation — Whether Endorois accorded land of equal value — Whether Endorois having equitable share in benefits from game reserve — Whether Kenya violating Article 22 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981

Treaties — Effect of municipal legislation — Whether term of treaty can be modified by legislation of one party — Presumption that no breach of international law intended by Legislature — Double taxation agreement between United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland — The law of England.

International law — Relation to municipal law — Interpretation of statutory provision inconsistent with prior treaty — Presumption that no breach of international law intended — Whether term of treaty may be modified by legislation of one Party — Double taxation agreement between United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland — The law of England.

Human rights — Jurisdiction — Torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Expulsion to non-contracting State — Whether State responsible if it expels individual to State where at risk of being subjected to torture — Existence of risk to be assessed with reference to facts known or which ought to have been known to respondent government at date of expulsion — Court’s assessment of applicant’s credibility, situation in State to which expelled and risk to which applicant exposed — Minimum level of severity of ill-treatment — Need for substantial basis for applicant’s fears — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3

Human rights — Respect for family life — Expulsion order — Separation of family occasioned by non-compliance with expulsion order by second and third applicants — Absence of obstacles to establishing family life in State of origin — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 8

International tribunals — Interim measures — European Commission of Human Rights — Power of Commission to make binding interim orders — Absence of specific provision granting power — Absence of implied power on the basis of prohibition on interference with the exercise of right of individual petition or on the basis of Rule 36 of Rules of Procedure of the Commission — State practice — Compliance with Rule 36 indications — Impossibility of such practice giving rise to new substantive power — Absence of general international law principle on power to make binding interim orders — Special circumstances in which Rule 36 indications given — Aggravation of violation if Rule 36 indication not complied with — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 25

Expropriation — Definition — Taking of property — Whether limited to tangible property — Whether including taking of contractual rights — Iran-United States Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955, Article IV(2) — Date of taking — Joint owner effectively excluded from participation in management of company — Whether amounting to expropriation of interest in company

Expropriation — State contracts — Force majeure — Effects — Whether contract terminated — Contractual provisions regarding force majeure — Parties to contract — Contract between State corporation and foreign company — Contract approved by government and legislature of State — Whether State a party

Expropriation — Requirements for lawful expropriation — Compliance with domestic law of expropriating State — Whether a requirement of international law — Discrimination — Whether objective justification for differential treatment — Public purpose requirement — Stabilization clauses — Whether capable of binding State — Right to nationalize

Expropriation — Compensation — Standard of compensation — Distinction between lawful and unlawful expropriations — Concept of full value — Iran-United States Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955, Article IV(2) — Whether including lucrum cessans — Concept of ‘going concern value’ — Methods of assessment of compensation — Discounted cash flow method — Net book value

Claims — Exhaustion of local remedies — Applicability of local remedies rule — Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Whether claimant required to exhaust local remedies before commencing proceedings — Nationality of claims — Requirement that claimants be United States nationals or United States corporations — Claim by United States corporation regarding expropriation of assets of wholly owned Swiss subsidiary

Damages — Measure of damages — Expropriation — Unlawful expropriation — Whether measure of damages for unlawful expropriation to be distinguished from assessment of compensation in case of lawful expropriation

International tribunals — Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Jurisdiction — Procedure — Award on agreed terms

Treaties — Effect — Whether conferring rights upon individuals — Iran-United States Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955, Article IV(2) — Whether Iran-United States Claims Tribunal required to apply standards laid down in Treaty irrespective of whether Treaty confers rights on individuals — Treaty as source of customary international law — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

International Arbitration — Intervention — Meaning of the Term “Legitimate Interest.”

Nationality — Of corporations — Ownership and control — Vessels under foreign flag — Labour disputes — Jurisdiction over — The law of the United States of America.

Jurisdiction — Personal — Over nationals abroad or on the high seas — Corporations owned or controlled by nationals — Vessels owned by — Vessels under foreign flag — Labour disputes abroad — Flags of convenience — Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between United States and Liberia, 1938 — The law of the United States of America.

Piracy jure gentium — Frustrated Attempt to Rob — Whether Actual Robbery Essential — Piracy in Civil Law — Piracy in Common Law — International Law Crimes and Jurisdiction — Sources of International Law.

War — In general — Enforcement of the laws of war — Punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity — Officers in civilian clothes operating behind enemy lines — Whether killing by such officers murder — Defence of superior orders — Rebel regime in Nigerian civil war — The law of Nigeria

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Extraterritorial effect of legislation — United States Congress — Whether Congress possessing the authority to enforce its laws outside United States — Presumption against extraterritorial effect — Whether presumption to be strictly applied — Evidence of clear Congressional intention needed to rebut presumption — Antitrust legislation — Whether applicable to acts performed by non-United States nationals abroad — Requirement that acts having substantial effect in United States — Whether substantial effects test sole consideration in determining jurisdiction — Principles of international comity — Relevance in determining whether courts should assert extraterritorial jurisdiction

Comity — Jurisdictional conflict — Duty of court to balance United States and foreign interests — United States antitrust laws — Extraterritorial application — Whether comity requiring United States courts to construe antitrust laws so as not to have extraterritorial effect — Whether principles of comity only applicable when foreign and United States laws in direct conflict

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Interpretation of legislation — Presumption that Congress did not intend to legislate in a manner contrary to international law — Antitrust legislation — Whether in conformity with principles of international comity

Economics, trade and finance — United States antitrust legislation — Whether applicable to acts performed outside the United States by non-United States nationals — Substantial effects test — Principles of international comity — Relevance — The law of the United States

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Abuse of rights — When commencement of litigation under investment treaty constituting abuse of rights — Whether initiation of arbitration amounting to abuse of rights — Tobacco products legislation on plain packaging — Foreseeability of plain packaging dispute — Corporate group engaging in restructuring in anticipation of plain packaging legislation — Effect of restructuring to place ownership and control in the hands of company incorporated in party to bilateral investment treaty — Whether any cogent reasons other than obtaining protection of the treaty for corporate restructure

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Existence of a dispute — Critical date — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over dispute ratione temporis — Date plain packaging dispute arising — Whether dispute arising prior to critical date

Economics, trade and finance — Investment protection — Bilateral investment treaties — Protection of intellectual property — Trademarks — Legislation requiring that tobacco products be sold only in plain packaging — Whether contrary to Agreement between Government of Hong Kong and Government of Australia for Promotion and Protection of Investments, 1993 — Abuse of rights

Treaties — Agreement between Government of Hong Kong and Government of Australia for Promotion and Protection of Investments, 1993 — Meaning of “control” and “substantial interest” under Article 1(e) of Treaty — Whether Philip Morris Asia exercising control over Philip Morris Australia and Philip Morris Limited pursuant to Article 1(e) — Whether sufficient evidence of control of any significance

Treaties — Agreement between Government of Hong Kong and Government of Australia for Promotion and Protection of Investments, 1993 — Requirement that an investment be admitted in Australia “subject to its laws and policies applicable from time to time” — Foreign Investment Application — Relevance of letter from Treasurer advising no objection to investment — Whether evidence otherwise establishing invalidly admitted investment

Jurisdiction — Extraterritoriality — Alien Tort Statute 1789 — Whether applying extraterritorially — Presumption against extraterritoriality — Whether applicable to allegations of torture — Personal cause of action — Separation of powers

Human rights — Enforcement — Actions in domestic courts — Prohibition of torture — Alien Tort Statute 1789 — Whether applicable to acts of torture allegedly committed outside the United States

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Jurisdiction — Claims in courts of one State for alleged violations of international law in territory of another State — Alien Tort Statute 1789 — The law of the United States

Treaties — Interpretation of — Miscellaneous — Warsaw Convention of 1929 on International Carriage by Air — Meaning of “principal place of business”.

State immunity — Officials — Minister for Commerce — Basis for State immunity claims — Allegations of offences of torture committed by Minister during previous office — Whether Minister entitled to immunity ratione personae — Membership of a special mission — Convention on Special Missions, 1969 — Whether declaratory of customary international law — The law of England

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Extraterritorial effect of legislation — United States Congress — Whether Congress possesses the authority to enforce its laws outside the United States — Presumption against extraterritorial effect — Whether presumption to be strictly applied — Evidence of clear congressional intention needed to rebut presumption — Anti-discrimination legislation — Whether applicable to United States citizen employed abroad by United States company — The law of the United States

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Act of State and justiciability — Nature of act of State doctrine in United States law — Contemporary purpose of doctrine — Respect of sovereign independence of State — Judicial restraint in matters of foreign relations — Requirement to establish that case turns on effect of an official action by a foreign sovereign — Burden of proof — Allegation that corporation secured valuable privileges by bribery — Enquiry into motives of foreign government in granting privileges — Whether barred by act of State doctrine — The law of the United States

Jurisdiction — On the high seas — Enforcement of municipal legislation — The law of the flag — Extension of law to national ships on the high seas — The law of Thailand.

Belligerent Occupation — Rights and Duties of Occupant — Power to Set up Courts — Japanese Civil Court in Hong Kong — Grant of Letters of Administration.

Belligerent Occupation — Judgment of Courts set up by Occupying Power — Grant of Letters of Administration — Variations in Procedure — Whether Cause for Invalidity — Japanese Civil Court in Hong Kong.

Treaties — Effect and Operation of — Effect upon Private Rights under a Contract — Impossibility to Fulfil a Contract on account of a Treaty.

Human rights — Nature and scope of human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Duty of parties to secure the rights and freedoms under the Convention to persons within their jurisdiction — Extent of jurisdiction — Persons outside the territory of a Contracting State — Whether within its jurisdiction — Jurisdiction essentially territorial and extraterritorial applications requiring special justification — Effective control of an area outside the territory of a State Party — Whether extending to areas outside the territory of any of the Member States of the Council of Europe — Concept of effective control — Whether to be equated with criteria for belligerent occupation — Extraterritorial jurisdiction on the basis of the exercise of authority by State agents — Prisoner detained in military detention facility in occupied territory — Whether prisoner within the jurisdiction of detaining State

Jurisdiction — Concept of jurisdiction in international law — Jurisdiction primarily territorial — Circumstances in which jurisdiction of State extends beyond its borders — Effective control of area in the territory of one State by the armed forces of another State — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Whether capable of extending to territory outside the Member States of the Council of Europe — Jurisdiction on the basis of exercisable authority over individual

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998 — Whether Human Rights Act intended to apply to acts of United Kingdom public authorities outside the territory of the United Kingdom — Purpose of Act to give effect in domestic law to the provisions of the Convention — Whether application of the Act co-extensive with application of the Convention

War and armed conflict — Occupation — Occupation of Iraq in 2003 — Creation by the United States of America and United Kingdom of Coalition Provisional Administration — Position of United Kingdom forces in South East Iraq — United Kingdom forces accepted as being in belligerent occupation of part of Iraq — Whether that part of Iraq falling within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether United Kingdom forces possessing effective control of that part of Iraq — The law of England