International tribunal backlash remains poorly understood: hampered by conceptual challenges, systematic research into the causes of this phenomenon remains nascent. The present article makes two contributions to advancing this endeavour. First, building on existing literature, it sets out a working definition of international tribunal backlash, tailored to facilitate mixed method empirical research into the causes of backlash across institutions and sectors. Second, drawing on international relations’ pluralist turn, the article provides an analytically eclectic theoretical scaffold for causal analysis of international tribunal backlash, enabling standardised cross-institutional and sectoral comparison without over-simplifying the complexity of backlash in various instances. The article accordingly provides the building blocks for improved understanding of the causes of – and the potential scope to manage – international tribunal backlash across institutions, regions and sectors.

In some non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) a foreign state is involved in favour of an armed group. This poses a challenge to classifying these armed conflicts under IHL. This article argues that evaluating the actions of a foreign state is best carried out by application of the ‘overall control’ test as developed by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Tadić case. The advantages of this approach are twofold. First, it is a more realistic benchmark for generating the required evidence than the complete dependency or effective control tests developed by the International Court of Justice. Second, using this test makes it less likely for a state to escape its responsibilities under IHL when it acts through armed groups in a prima facie NIAC on the territory of another state. To arrive at this conclusion, the article first critically discusses the different control tests. It then advances that Article 4 of Geneva Convention III 1949 and Article 29 of Geneva Convention IV 1949 themselves contain a threshold of control that can be used to identify foreign state participation in a prima facie NIAC.

This article discusses the military campaign against the ‘Islamic State’ (Daesh) in an attempt to illustrate the gaps in the international legal framework that regulates the use of force in dealing with a challenge such as that presented by the Islamic State. This case study was demanding given the need to reconcile state-centred rules with a diverse reality which includes several players, and particularly non-state armed groups in control of territory and population. In order to deal with this issue, the article proposes the invocation of a functional approach, compared with a binary approach, which is suitable in cases where several players exercise power in the same territory. In particular, it suggests that the Islamic State could have been treated functionally as a state for the purposes of self-defence or collective security measures, rather than invoking legal doctrines of unclear status that might result in undermining the international legal system they are invoked to protect.

The book Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues is the first volume of an Anglo-German project which aims ‘to explore the foundational principles and concepts that underpin the different domestic systems and local rules’. It offers comparative perspectives on German and Anglo-American criminal law and criminal justice as ‘examples of the civil law and the common law worlds’. The comparisons ‘dig beneath the superficial similarities or differences between legal rules to identify and compare the underlying concepts, values, principles, and structures of thought’. The review essay focuses on the topics of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime, all of which extend the typical criminal liability. It presents the comparative German and Anglo-American perspectives discussed in the book with regard to each topic and adds the perspective of Israeli criminal law. It points out the features common to all these topics as an extension of criminal liability and discusses the underlying considerations that justify the criminalisation of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime. In evaluating whether extending criminal liability in these contexts is justified, the review essay suggests reliance on two main notions: that of ‘control over the commission of the offence’ and that of ‘liberty (or personal freedom)’.

There seems to have been a shift in the state-centric vision of international relations, following the increasing role of non-state actors (NSAs) on the international scene, particularly in the context of armed conflicts. Ezequiel Heffes, Marcos Kotlik and Manuel Ventura, editors of International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors, present through this collection of contributions an overview of legal issues arising from this new reality. The editors draw on their personal experience to explain how NSAs contribute to the development of international humanitarian law (IHL) and to suggest that in order to promote respect for IHL by all parties involved in an armed conflict, this new role should be given due consideration from a legal standpoint. The review aims to confront critically the position taken in the volume, assessing the pros and cons of an increased recognition (and potential legitimisation) of NSAs, with a particular focus on non-state armed groups. It discusses, in particular, the implications of this process for the exercise of sovereign rights and respect for fundamental guarantees, especially in relation to the powers to detain and to adjudicate.