The quest of extending the role of tribunals beyond its traditional mission of justice to embrace the difficult need of reconciliation after mass atrocities has revealed itself to be challenging. This difficulty is most clearly illustrated in the case of the ICTR, whose mission is to bring about Rwandan reconciliation through justice. The implementation of this mission that was doubted by some members of the Security Council, including the Rwanda itself, at the time of setting up the ICTR is becoming a difficult experiment, with positive results but also with some negative outcomes capable even of undermining the aimed objective of national reconciliation. The problem of co-operation between the Tribunal and Rwanda, the difficulties of circumscribing individual responsibility without condemning the whole community, the problem of singling out and punishing some criminals and leaving the rest unpunished, the abuse of pardon and clemency, and finally the absence of the victim in a criminal process pretending to restore his situation are some of the difficult problems hampering the proclaimed mission of reconciliation assigned to the ICTR. This article is an attempt to analyse these problems and their impact on national reconciliation in Rwanda.

A key achievement of the International Criminal Court is its acknowledgment of the rights of victims to participate in proceedings and to seek reparation before the Court. This article analyses some of the specific challenges relating to the ICC reparations regime, stemming from the interplay between the ICC and national courts on such issues as tracing assets and implementing protective measures, and in enforcing the ICC's reparations orders. A review of several examples of legislation adopted by states parties on cooperation with the ICC is undertaken with a view to examining its potential impact on these issues.

In this article, I argue that two prominent frameworks for evaluating and developing international criminal law (ICL) can be reconciled into a new framework that absorbs the best insights of its predecessors. We cannot simply transplant fundamental principles from national legal systems, because they may be inapposite in the unusual contexts faced by ICL. However, this novelty does not mean that we are free to simply abandon culpability, legality, and our basic underlying commitment to the individual. Instead we must explore what that deontic commitment might entail in these new contexts. My primary aim is to show the possibility of bridging the apparent normative impasse. I also briefly sketch out the proposed framework, and suggest that it can generate new questions for current controversies in ICL. As an interesting by-product, the examination of ‘abnormal’ criminal law can raise new questions for general criminal-law theory, by exposing subtleties and parameters that we might not have noticed in a study of ‘normal’ contexts.

This contribution sets out the path towards consensus at Kampala. Before the Review Conference, two main issues remained unresolved: the question whether some form of consent by the alleged aggressor state should be required, and the role of the UN Security Council. Few had expected a consensus on a comprehensive package. The outcome of Kampala reflects significant compromises, but also a significant step to advance international criminal law.

A few years before the expected convening of the First Review Conference on the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Special Working Group for the Crime of Aggression has made very significant progress in preparing the ground for enabling the Court to exercise its jurisdiction over what the Nuremberg Tribunal famously called the ‘supreme international crime’. The complex structure of this absolute leadership crime has been fully explored, including its implications for the interplay between the definition of the crime and the general principles of international criminal law. At the same time, the crucial analytical distinctions between state and individual conduct as well as between the substantive elements of the crime and the possible procedural role of the UN Security Council appear to be generally accepted. In the light of the momentum achieved on the diplomatic level, the First Review Conference presents a distinct and historic window of opportunity to the world's political leadership to complete the Rome Statute and thereby prevent its prominent lacuna from becoming permanent and thus turning into a legitimacy gap. The final phase of the negotiations should be guided by two principles. First, the substantive definition of the state act of aggression should stay within the legitimate limits of international criminal justice by not exceeding undisputed general customary international law. Second, a possible procedural role for the Security Council must not have the practical effect of placing the permanent members of the Security Council beyond the reach of the law.

Soft law is often seen as a way to overcome certain problems of legitimacy in international law, notably the weaknesses of a voluntaristic conception of international law's validity. Other perceived benefits of soft law include flexibility, speed of adoption and modification, and even effectiveness. Yet, soft law is seen by others as a threat to law, because it effaces the border between law and politics. This paper explores different approaches to the boundary between law and not-law that seek both to maintain this boundary and to reconceptualize it in a way that better anchors the validity of international legal rules.

In the last two decades, the concept of plurinationalism has appeared in discussions about nationalism, statehood and multilevel governance, being formulated as a new state model that accommodates cultural diversity within the liberal state with the aim of solving nationalistic conflicts in countries marked by profound ethnic grievances, mainly in Europe. However, these discussions have paid less attention to the meaning of plurinationalism in ex-colonial contexts, particularly in recent experiences of state transformation in Bolivia and Ecuador, where the role of indigenous peoples in the plurinational project has been crucial. To fill this gap, this article explores the legal and political foundations, challenges and local and international dynamics in the building of the plurinational model in both countries. Under a critical engagement with Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), this article argues that plurinationality from indigenous perspectives departs from multicultural liberal models associated with current European plurinational views, and addresses two challenges: a global political economy of resource extraction, and a racialized state structure working as a barrier to actual plurinational implementation. These limitations explain an intrinsic tension in the Bolivian and Ecuadorian experience: on the one hand, plurinational governments try to unify the people around the ‘national interest’ of developing extractive industries; and on the other hand, they attempt to recognize ethno-political differences that often challenge the transnational exploitation of local resources.

The article aims at examining, in the light of the practice of the International Court of Justice, some issues concerning the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures to prevent the aggravation or extension of a dispute. While the existence of a power to indicate non-aggravation measures appears to be well established in the Court's case law, the scope of this power has proved to be a more controversial issue. This study argues that, by attaching relevance to the element of aggravation, the Court has been able to indicate measures that are not strictly needed to prevent a risk of irreparable harm but which at any rate contribute to a greater protection of the rights of the parties; at the same time, however, the Court has so far refrained from regarding the risk of aggravation as a circumstance which may justify a less stringent evaluation of the other conditions that normally need to be satisfied for the granting of interim protection under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute.

This introductory paper to the symposium hosted by the Leiden Journal of International Law, and edited by the authors, deals with the function of domestic courts as agents for the development of international law. The paper ‘sets the scene’ for the contributions to the symposium, which seek to trace the impact of domestic courts in the development of canonical areas of international law, such as jurisdiction, immunity, state responsibility, the law of international organizations/human rights, and the law of armed conflict/conduct of hostilities. It discusses the formal quality and actual influence of domestic-court decisions on the development of international-law, and introduces the concept of ‘agents’ of international-law development. This is the analytical perspective that the contributions to the symposium adopt.

In 2009, the International Court of Justice introduced plausibility as a requirement for indicating provisional measures under Article 41 of its Statute. Upon its introduction, plausibility was conceived as a test to establish that the rights asserted by applicant states might exist under international law. However, the Court subsequently developed the plausibility test into a higher standard, which requires the Court also to assess that the alleged conduct of the respondent state might breach that applicant state's asserted rights. This development has important implications for provisional measures proceedings before the Court. First, one could distinguish two aspects of plausibility, legal and factual. Second, plausibility has different functions in requests for provisional measures depending on whether the applicant state asserts rights arising under a treaty or under customary international law. Third, the Court's enquiry into plausibility could overlap with the enquiry into prima facie jurisdiction ratione materiae, although these two requirements conceivably entail different thresholds. Fourth, plausibility in provisional measures indicated in interpretation proceedings could be seen to be different from plausibility in provisional measures indicated in ordinary contentious proceedings.

On 31 May 2004, the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone ruled in a sweeping but brief decision that the Court had jurisdiction over Charles Ghankay Taylor, President of Liberia at the time of his indictment. The judges reached this conclusion finding that the accused could not invoke immunities ratione personae before this institution, an international criminal court. As this article demonstrates, the Chamber's argumentation lacks specificity and displays confusion over certain issues related to UN law, the law of international institutions and international immunities. The factual outcome is a welcome one, facilitating the prosecution of international crimes. Yet, the Appeals Chamber's approach is regrettable, especially if one considers that the same result could have been reached through less controversial avenues, without endangering the credibility of the Court and thereby the idea of international criminal justice through internationalized criminal courts.

The Israeli official policy of targeted killing has often been a subject of controversy and criticism. Although still applied by the state of Israel, this cruel practice was recently limited in a courageous decision handed down by the Israeli Supreme Court. The new restrictions on targeted killing represent an important step towards its criminalization. Despite this, the Court's interpretation of the international humanitarian law requirements is still too broad and there is a need for more restrictive safeguards. In addition, the current uncertainties of this field of law, replicated in the decision, exacerbate the problem further. The main difficulty, however, lies in the theoretical assumption that targeted killing is legal. This article proposes instead to view targeted killing as an exception to the presumption of protection of the civilian population. The authors review the recent trends in international humanitarian law in order to assess the impact of the Court's reasoning. Although this landmark case represents an important breakthrough, it will certainly not be the last word on targeted killing.

The ICJ's Advisory Opinion adopted a very narrow approach to the question posed by the General Assembly, but its basic response – that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate general international law – was correct. While it might have been preferable if the Court had given more guidance regarding the contemporary scope of self-determination, neither supporters nor opponents of Kosovo's independence gained much from the opinion. No definitive conclusion about Kosovo's status can be drawn without agreement between Pristina and Belgrade, and outsiders should avoid prejudging or interfering in that outcome.

The chief aim of this article is to unearth, explicate, and contextualize the various techniques on which Mahmut Esat, Turkey's agent before the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Lotus case, drew in order to narrate a fresh understanding of Turkish ‘nationhood’ during a period of intense vulnerability for the newly established Republic. The argument advanced by Turkey in this case – that it need not demonstrate the existence of a specific jurisdictional exception in international law in order to proceed with its prosecution of the French captain of the Lotus, a French vessel – has often been dismissed as an example of cynical apologetics. Nevertheless, a close reading of Turkey's pleadings reveals that it was inclined to oscillate between a variety of universalistic and particularistic approaches, Esat litigating the Lotus with an eye to exploiting the schism that lies at the heart of the concept of ‘civilization’ so as to submit Turkey to the normative authority of the international legal system while bolstering its positive power as an independent sovereign state. More specifically, it was by merging two modes of reasoning – the one prizing systematicity, the other prioritizing sovereignty – that Esat sought to construct a new, robustly reconciliatory identity for the ‘Turkish nation’, one that would enable it to embrace its commitment to international order by securing its place in ‘la civilisation contemporaine’ while amplifying the ambit of its autonomy as ‘un état civilisé’.

The New Stream of critical international legal theory has been a welcome corrective to theory-blindness in international law, but it is limited by its philosophical idealism. The materialist philosophy of Marxism, by reference to political–economic contexts and conflicts, can better explain many of the New Stream's insights. The pioneering jurisprudence of Evgenii Pashukanis shows that many ‘traditional’ Marxist theories of law are limited and limiting. A reformulation of Pashukanis's ‘commodity-form’ theory shows that contra claims that the rule of law is characterized by peaceful coexistence, the unequal political violence of imperialism is intrinsic to the international system and to international law.

This article critically assesses the role of provisional measures indicated by the International Court of Justice in protecting populations during armed conflict situations and the legal consequences attached to the violation of such measures. A number of relevant cases, including the most recent Georgia v. Russia case, are dealt with. Provisional measures aimed at protecting populations affected by armed conflict have been increasingly requested in the last two decades by states finding themselves at a military disadvantage. Questions remain, however, with regard to the suitability of these incidental proceedings to deal with major political controversies resulting in armed conflict between states. That notwithstanding, it is submitted that although compliance with such orders of the Court remains unsatisfactory, in the long term provisional measures can eventually strengthen state compliance with commonly agreed international human rights and humanitarian law standards.

Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been mostly hailed as a victory, Islamic states still regard its application of international criminal-law norms with scepticism. The Rome Statute instructs the Court to apply general principles of law derived from national laws of legal systems of the world including the national laws of states that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime but, so far, the Court has relied purely upon Western inspiration and may fail to acquire the legitimacy to establish a universal system. Among the legal systems that are unjustifiably neglected by the ICC is the Islamic legal tradition. This paper argues that the principles of Islamic law are, for the most part, consistent with internationally recognized norms and standards, particularly those enshrined in the Rome Statute, and are on an equal footing with the common and Continental legal systems that are currently employed by the Court in the search for general principles of law.

The principle of non-refoulement found in the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees has been widely regarded as the core element of the international refugee protection regime. However, in the recent era of restrictive external migration controls, its significance and ambit diminished to the extent that states began to regard it as a general moral principle that imposed only narrowly defined legal constraints. In particular, interception or interdiction of refugees on the high seas came to be regarded as activities falling outside the legal ambit of the non-refoulement obligation. However, in Europe, this has begun to change. The non-refoulement obligation found in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been recognized as a legal constraint on state sovereignty in relation to migration controls on the high seas. This article scrutinizes how the developing concept of jurisdiction in human rights law, particularly as found in the ECHR, has expanded the scope of application of the principle of non-refoulement, and presents some important implications. The concept of state sovereignty has begun to undergo a paradigm shift that places extraterritorial human rights concerns relating to external migration controls squarely within a legal rather than merely a moral framework.

The legal argument of intervention by invitation has been used by all 11 states intervening in Iraq (nine members of the US-led coalition, Russia, and Iran), by Egypt for its airstrikes against ISIL in Libya, and by Iran and Russia for their interventions in Syria. To the extent that these consensual military interventions targeted ISIL and other UN-designated terrorist groups, their legality has not been challenged by any state. Strong criticisms marked nonetheless military operations undertaken by invitation, but not targeting ‘terrorist groups’, such as the alleged Russian strikes against the ‘Syrian moderate opposition’. The arguments advanced by intervening states seem to confirm the purpose-based approach of intervention by invitation. They did not claim a ‘right to intervene in a civil war’, but relied on the existence of both a request by the government and a legitimate purpose: fighting ISIL and other terrorist groups. The different reactions also show unwillingness by the international community to recognize a general right of intervention in a civil war. Turning to the strikes of the US-led coalition in Syria, it is impossible to rely on the legal basis of ‘intervention by invitation’. The controversial theory of ‘passive consent’ could be used to some extent – but not after September 2015 when Syria denounced these strikes as a ‘flagrant violation’ of its sovereignty. The current efforts of the international community to find consensual solutions to the dramatic conflicts in Syria, Libya, and Iraq could offer new possibilities of consensual interventions against ISIL and other terrorist groups.