The development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has often revealed the tight interrelation between refugee law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. It has been argued that the latter bodies of law have, in fact, played a major role in the development of most key concept of the European Union asylum acquis.

Drawing from the judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Diakité, this article aims to prove that this assumption is not always true, especially with reference to the interpretation of specific concepts of international humanitarian law (IHL) and, in particular, the controversial notion of ‘internal armed conflict’. In tackling the sensitive issue of clarifying the meaning of ‘internal armed conflict’ in order to investigate the grounds to warrant subsidiary protection under the Qualification Directive, the Court provided an autonomous interpretation that goes beyond IHL, thus offering another occasion to investigate the interrelation between international law and the EU legal order.

While contributing to the ongoing debate on the relationship between international law and the EU legal order, the article will consider the impact of the Court's reasoning on the EU asylum acquis, and will consider whether disconnecting the Qualification Directive from IHL, instead of producing further fragmentation of international law, may contribute to its defragmentation, conceived of as a harmonic co-ordination of different branches of law.

Scholars of the history of international law have recently begun to wonder whether their work is predominantly about law or history. The questions we ask – about materials, contexts and movements – all raise intractable problems of historiography. Yet, few scholars have turned to historical theory to think through how we might go about addressing them.

This article works towards remedying that gap by exploring why and how we might engage with historiography more deeply.

Section 2 shows how the last three decades of the ‘turn to history’ can be usefully read as a move from ambivalence to anxiety. The major works of the 2000s thoroughly removed the pre-1990s ambivalence to history, offering brief considerations about method. Recent efforts building on those works have led to the present era of anxiety about both history and method, raising questions around materials, contexts and movements. But far from a negative state, this moment of anxiety is both appropriate and potentially creative: it prompts us to rethink our mode of engaging with historiography.

Section 3 explores how this engagement might proceed. It reconstructs the principles and debates within conceptual history around the anxieties of materials, contexts and movements. It then explores how these might be adapted to histories of international law, both generally and within one concrete project: a conceptual history of recognition in the writings of British jurists.

Section 4 concludes by considering the advances achieved by this kind of engagement, and reflects on new directions for international law and its histories.

Inter-state disputes on human rights issues have been a far from exceptional phenomenon. During the Cold War the human rights question deeply divided the countries belonging to the Western and the communist blocs. Relations between developed and developing countries quite often have been heavily strained by controversies on human rights. But even within a group of countries belonging to an alliance or a homogeneous regional organization, human rights issues from time to time have been the cause of serious difficulties; e.g., the human rights record of Greece and Portugal within NATO and that of Greece and Turkey within the Council of Europe. Hardly ever have such disputes been subjected to third party dispute settlement machinery, even if such machinery was available. Most human rights treaties have a so-called procedure for state complaints, although in most cases acceptance of such a procedure is optional for the state parties. Only under two treaties, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, it is mandatory for any state party against which a complaint by another state party is made, to submit itself to such a procedure. In most cases the procedures are of a fact-finding and mediatory character.Again, only under two (regional) treaties, the European and the American Convention on Human Rights, the initiating of such a procedure may lead to a binding decision.

In a matter of weeks or months, the United Nations will publish the Legal Guide on Drawing Up International Contracts for Construction of Industrial Works (‘Legal Guide’ or ‘Guide’). The preparation of the Guide had been formally decided upon by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (‘UNCITRAL’ or ‘Commission’) in 1981, and the completed Guide approved for publication by the Commission in August 1987 in Vienna.

This commentary argues that the Trial Chamber in Katanga adopted an erroneous interpretation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court by limiting the grounds to ne bis in idem on which a challenge to admissibility can be brought after the confirmation of charges. The Trial Chamber held that the ‘commencement of trial’ under Article 19(4) is the moment of the constitution of the Trial Chamber, rather than the making of opening statements. This commentary re-examines the legal reasoning of the Court and advocates a different reading. It also suggests that the Chamber has failed to strike a proper balance between the possibility of making challenges to admissibility and the smooth and efficient working of the proceedings, which compromises the long-term legitimacy of the institution and the interests of justice.

Understanding international judicial behaviour requires the development of a perspective that considers both individual and collective action. On the one hand, individual judges are influenced and shaped by their background and trajectory prior to their international judicial appointment; on the other hand, when appointed to international courts, they become part of a particular social setting and group dynamic. The article provides an interpretive, structural theory of judicial behaviour which allows for an understanding of international judicial action and the judicial institutional practices resulting from it. The article explains this double structuration of international judicial behaviour by first reconsidering and amending the notion of habitus, originally developed by Pierre Bourdieu, and secondly by applying this idea to the practice of the Caribbean Court of Justice.

Recently, the ICJ appears to have been taking into account the protection of human life in its indication of provisional measures. This raises the question of how and to what extent the human life element influences the criteria for indicating provisional measures. After considering the meaning of ‘irreparability’ in the Court's jurisprudence, the author analyzes recent case law in the light of a link between irreparable harm and those rights of the parties that constitute the subject matter of the dispute in judicial proceedings. In conclusion, the author criticizes the Court's recent approach towards indicating provisional measures, as it raises some problems concerning jurisdiction, as well as the binding character and the nature of provisional measures.

The ICTY has interpreted its Statute as a ‘treaty’. This was not the intention of the UN Secretariat and the Security Council, and is not consistent with other treatments of the Statute. While the Statute literally satisfies the definition of ‘treaty’ in the 1969 Vienna Convention, this shows only the generality of that definition. The adoption of more precise labels for the Statute and other multi-state instruments adopted by international organizations through representational mechanisms would avoid confusion and promote better understanding of the rules that govern them.

The financial collapse of the International Tin Council (ITC) in 1985 raised three fundamental legal questions. Firstly, whether the granting of legal personality to an organization under international law by means of an international agreement always carries with it the limited liability of the organization. Secondly, it must be asked whether agreements to establish an international entity based on the statutes of international law are never subject to national jurisdiction. And thirdly, consideration is needed of the precautions to be taken in the future in order to avoid this kind of financial collapse. The answers to these questions have to consider that the international organizations have changed the emphasis of their activities from the perception of sovereign duties over the economic field where they rely on trust and cooperation with private enterprises. Due to this situation a distinction must be made between acts of state and activities under civil law. There is no principle at all in international or private law according to which the granting of international personality or legal capacity involves sole liability. Also the Act of State doctrine is not suited to protect the FTC or its member states from recourse to the court by private creditors in the case of civil acts. To realise the aim of creating a new and more equitable economic order and to improve the necessary credit standing, the statutes of the internationalorganizations must also contain improved control mechanisms.

Following the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Avena case, US courts have had a mixed record in applying the decision domestically. In this article, I examine the treatment by US courts of claims by criminal defendants alleging Vienna Convention violations, subsequent to the Avena judgment. First, I discuss the two limited decisions so far taken by the US Supreme Court regarding the Vienna Convention, and briefly explain several of the judicially-created rules that have prevented most US courts from reaching the merits of Vienna Convention claims. Next, I analyse the ICJ judgment in the LaGrand case, and provide an overview of the reception of that case by the US courts. After a summary of the Avena decision, I turn to the latest cases in which Vienna Convention claims based on Avena have been raised in US courts, focusing on the two most important decisions, and examining their contradictory rulings. As the US Supreme Court has now decided to hear an appeal in one of these cases, I conclude by arguing that the Supreme Court should take the opportunity to elucidate the role of the International Court of Justice in US law when the United States has consented to binding treaty interpretation by that court.

The nature of international criminal trial practice is integral to the perception of the legitimacy of international criminal justice. However, our understanding of what transpires within the trial chambers of international courts and tribunals (ICTs) comes primarily from the reports of judges, lawyers, and stakeholders within the system. This article argues that, while the vast body of international criminal justice scholarship barely draws on socio-legal research, empirical work can contribute to a more objective understanding of international criminal trial practice. It examines prevailing academic approaches to the study of international trial practice as a backdrop to the assessment of data from one of the most expansive empirical studies of international trial practice, undertaken during the second mandate (1999–2003) of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The findings illustrate significant variations in how judges in different Trial Chambers chose to exercise discretion, revealing the co-existence of two distinct modalities of practice in ‘proactive’ and ‘reactive’ Trial Chambers. Quantitative and qualitative data allow for an assessment of the efficiency of these modalities, revealing the critical role of the performance of the judge in the trial process. It is argued that these findings highlight the potential for further socio-legal research to motivate ‘light-touch reform’ within the international criminal justice system.

While the Statute of the International Criminal Court guarantees to suspects and accused the right to be defended in person or through legal assistance, it contains little guidance as to the extent to which this most fundamental right will be provided. In order to ascertain how broadly it should be applied, the authors examine the application of the right by the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The authors note that the defence-orientated approach taken by the ad hoc Tribunals to the right to be defended in person or through legal assistance not only conforms with international obligations, but also in many respects goes beyond that required by international human rights law. It is, therefore, crucial that the ICC listens to the experience of the ad hoc Tribunals and adopts similar, if not identical, rules and regulations relating to the qualifications, conduct and assignment of counsel.

The theories of joint criminal enterprise and joint control over the crime have often been cited as the paramount example of fragmentation in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court and the UN Tribunals. While the analyses on these two forms of co-perpetration have generally focused on contrasting the different definitional criteria that they rely on to distinguish between principals and accessories to a group crime, this article shifts the focus to one legal element that, although common for both theories, has actually caused a deeper dissonance in the topical case law of the international courts and tribunals: the ‘common plan’ requirement. It is argued that the varying interpretations of this element have given rise to three materially distinct constructions of co-perpetration responsibility in international criminal law. Several normative and practical concerns stemming from the adoption of broad definitions for the common plan element, and the related idea of ascribing responsibility for ‘excess’ crimes of the executed plan, are analyzed to emphasize the need for having a critical discussion on this element of co-perpetration.

The watershed of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 calls for new approaches to the theory of international law. Hardt and Negri's Empire is a focal point for the broadly postmodernist New Approaches to International Law, which celebrates an infinite variety of resistances to oppressive structures. This book is itself in need of deconstruction. Post-structuralism must give way to a framework of analysis that accepts a place for agency, and with it, responsibility, alongside social structures. Contemporary Marxist critique of international relations, coming mainly from the field of geopolitical international history, can combine with social democratic critique of the international economic system to attach firm responsibility for the material economic woes of international society to the United States. The militarism of US foreign policy is, in a Marxist critique, primarily a function of US economic contradictions. Law plays a role here as a coercive instrument of the state. This state is capitalist in operating globally a system of accumulation by dispossession. Where necessary it reinforces its operations with violence. However, international law, as an expression of the equality of nations, especially in their social needs, is honoured in the breach by such dispossession and violence.

In its jurisprudence, the ICJ has developed a hierarchy of sources it will rely on to resolve territorial disputes: it prioritizes a boundary treaty between the state litigants, followed by agreements between the states’ colonial predecessors, and finally state litigants’ actions displaying their authority over the disputed territory. The Court’s practice therefore leaves no room for local populations to contribute to boundary-making decisions. Given the status self-determination holds in international law today, and the repercussions possibly faced by such populations in certain territorial disputes, there is cause to consider that the desires of local populations should be considered in the Court’s legal reasoning. This article first unpacks the reasons that self-determination is not brought up by state litigants on one hand, nor by the Court on the other hand. It notes that self-determination is only rhetorically addressed by states if buttressing their interests. It therefore attempts to reconcile self-determination with territorial disputes, suggesting how peoples’ desires may be factored into the Court’s approach.

Ceasefire agreements are legally governed by international humanitarian law because they have generally been considered in relation to how they affect levels of violence. However, new research in the fields of anthropology, security, and development studies suggests that ceasefires can have many more ramifications. These range from their ability to influence governance institutions, property and citizenship rights, economic networks, and security mechanisms. Consequently, this article suggests that a broader legal framework is needed through which to consider ceasefires and their consequences. While canvassing the option of ceasefires being types of contractual documents or as special agreements under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the article concludes that the best way to regulate ceasefire agreements is through an expanded version of lex pacificatoria. Rather than being governed by hard international law, such a move would allow for the implementation of more flexible programmatic standards to influence the myriad ways ceasefires are negotiated, the conduct of belligerents, and their diverse effects on the ground during wartime.

Additional opinions (AOs) – dissenting opinions, separate opinions and declarations, whether authored individually or jointly – are a distinctive characteristic of the ICJ’s jurisprudence. Few decisions of the International Court of Justice (the Court, ICJ) are delivered without any additional opinion attached to it. Yet, despite their ubiquity, there is still significant disagreement as to their relationship to the authority of the Court and its decisions. Although this disagreement is commonly attributed to the different approaches and attitudes traditionally associated with the ‘civil law’ and ‘common law’ traditions, few ask specifically why those traditions take the approach they do, and even fewer consider the appropriateness of the extension of those attitudes to the ICJ, which of course is neither ‘civil law’ nor ‘common law’. In this article, using the work of Mirjan Damaška, I offer a contextually coherent and contextually contingent understand of the theory and practice of additional opinions at the ICJ upon which engagement with this practice – by judges, scholars and practitioners – can be premised. This effort to understand the relationship between additional opinions and institutional authority will, by its very nature, lead to a broader enquiry into the very nature of institutional authority at the ICJ. Having explained the importance of AOs to the structural integrity of the Court’s authority, I will close this article by highlighting the role of various stakeholders when engaging with that practice to ensure that their institutional function is discharged.

The question whether the International Criminal Court may use its review powers to determine the admissibility of a case during the arrest warrant phase has gone widely unnoticed in legal literature on the International Criminal Court. This article treats the question from different perspectives. It presents the different stages at which admissibility questions may arise in response to a state party referral. Then it analyses the first jurisprudence of Pre-Trial Chambers I and II of the Court on the treatment of the question of admissibility at the arrest warrant stage. The article concludes that the Court may, proprio motu or based on a Prosecutor's request, rule on admissibility questions during arrest warrant proceedings per Article 58.