The global climate crisis response envisioned by the Paris Agreement is commonly understood as demanding transformative change. International law, however, lacks a holistic conceptual framing for making sense of what such change would entail, how it might unfold, and who and what it will involve. Moreover, there has been little critical engagement with the question of what is at stake when invoking the notion of transformation. Contributing to the broader debate about what the climate crisis demands of international law, this article offers a critical conceptual appraisal of the notion of ‘transformation’. Conceptually, it describes transformative dynamics as processes which work towards radically different states of affairs that seem practically impossible under the status quo, but which could arguably be realized if different conditions were in place. Developing an ontology of transformative change, the article identifies heterogenous temporality, the actualization of impossible possibilities, and distributed engagement as three central features of transformations in climate crisis. Having laid the conceptual groundwork, the article then takes a critical turn and foregrounds unresolved tensions that run through transformation thinking. The aim here is to connect to critical discourses and show how these tensions can serve as entry points for international law to meaningfully engage with the notion of transformation. The article closes by offering some reflections on what engagement with the notion of transformation might mean for international law’s disciplinary identity, rationale, and sense of purpose.

The gravity of the crime committed has been considered ‘a factor of fundamental importance’ when deciding the early release of a person convicted by the ad hoc tribunals. Hence, most of the decisions rendered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, for Rwanda and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals include this factor and determine whether it weighs in favour of or against early release. Conversely, when deciding the reduction of the sentence in the case of Thomas Lubanga, the International Criminal Court Panel stated in 2015 that ‘unlike at other international criminal tribunals, the gravity of the crime committed is not a factor that in itself weighs for or against reduction of sentence’. In fact, none of the decisions delivered by the International Criminal Court to date mention gravity. This drastic change reflects the differences in the corresponding statutes and rules of procedure and evidence and ultimately seeks to avoid a double count since the gravity of the crime committed is arguably the most important factor in the determination of the sentence. This divergence is examined in greater detail in this article, drawing on comparative, empirical research to establish the role played by gravity in early release decisions. Ultimately, it is argued that although the explanatory power generally attributed to gravity is often overrated, it is essential to a thorough early release assessment, whether included as a prerequisite per se or indirectly integrated into a wider prognosis of the risk of recidivism.

In international human rights law, the notion of due diligence concerns a qualifier of behaviour to realize human rights protection, including the protection against non-state actor interferences. However, the question remains what due diligence obligations of states in the context of non-state actor interferences exactly entail in international human rights law. The present article aims to address this matter by comparing case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with that of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). Using a working model of due diligence that has been introduced in recent scholarly work, this article further explores this model and attempts to give further meaning to its two paradigms: ‘regulation’ and ‘risk management’. In that way, it maps out the relevant elements of this foundational concept that lies at the heart of human rights protection.

The International Law Commission has allegedly been in crisis from its first day of existence. Its own (former) members have been critical about its working methods, the topics it chooses to discuss, its relationship with other UN bodies, and even its aura. At the same time, the International Law Commission also paints more positive pictures of itself. This article aims to make sense of this dynamic without explaining, accepting or refuting any doubts or critiques. Instead, in an attempt to take these discussions to a new place, the article analyses the debates of the Committee of 17, which recommended the establishment of the International Law Commission in 1947. By combining literary, socio-legal and historical methods, it is argued that the ILC is founded on an embracing of uncertainty. As such, the Commission’s ambivalence towards itself is revealed as structural rather than illustrative of the institution being in crisis.

This article aims to enrich the emerging, multi-coloured tapestry of ‘international law in context’ through a study of how international economic law operates in complex investment-related disputes. Focusing on the Eco Oro v. Colombia investor-state arbitration, and drawing on both doctrinal analysis and sociolegal research, the study investigates how different actors make sense of the issues, of the dispute, and of the law. Besides shedding light on the neglected multi-actor, multi-layered dimensions of investment disputes, and on tensions between often incommensurable values, juxtaposing arbitral proceedings and underlying social realities highlights how investor-state arbitration involves a socio-political process of re-presenting actors, territory, the environment, and livelihoods through the prism of international arrangements that are primarily designed to protect foreign investment. The findings provide policy pointers on the need for systemic reform of international investment law, moving away from the predominant emphasis on investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement, towards a governance model that effectively considers the social, political, and environmental dimensions of foreign investment projects.

From 1864 to the 1970s, international humanitarian law (IHL) changed through the path of formal treaty revision. Since 1977, however, purported changes to IHL have come not from treaty making but from interpretation, particularly through claims about the attainment of customary status by existing treaty rules. This article explains this shift as the result of the attitudes and choices of key IHL stakeholders under the changed conditions of post-Second World War multilateralism. It argues that the turn toward customary law claims-making was a reaction to the negotiation politics and contested outcomes of the 1977 Additional Protocols (APs) to the Geneva Conventions. After 1977, leading actors looked to custom as a means of arresting or encouraging legal change. The resulting, much-expanded IHL has proved influential and authoritative, even if its precise degree of acceptance by states remains unclear.

This article addresses the question of whether the violence between Türkiye and the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) constitutes an armed conflict within the meaning of international humanitarian law. The article first explains the different non-international armed conflict descriptions provided by (i) the ICTY’s famous Tadić decision, (ii) Additional Protocol II, and (iii) the Rome Statute of the ICC and discusses the different applicability thresholds set by these sources. After noting that the terrorist nature of the acts of violence in a situation will not prevent them from being characterized as an armed conflict and that the application of the international humanitarian law norms would not in fact affect the legal status of the PKK, this article examines whether Türkiye’s struggle against the PKK could be classified as an armed conflict subject to international humanitarian law norms.

This article examines the idea of the sui generis in international law and explores how these exceptions structure international legal thought. Exceptions are useful to international law theorizing because they create easy manageable narratives which explain situations not fitting traditional paradigms, yet as a category in their own right – specifically how they are structured and how they operate – they are often undertheorized. The two examples explored in this article are sui generis actors and the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction. I demonstrate the foundational role played by (state-)territorialized thinking in the creation of oppositional categories: state and non-state, and the non-exceptional and exceptional exercise of jurisdiction. The category of exceptions has significantly expanded from the likes of the Holy See and irregular exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction to a broad array of actors, such as international organizations and transnational corporations, playing growing and varied roles in contemporary law-making and governance and the regular exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by states. Rather than continuing with this overextended category, the article argues it is instead possible, by rethinking international law’s spatial imaginary, to first, better understand the spaces of non-state actors and regularized exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction and second, eradicate the now overstretched legal category of ‘sui generis’.

A pivotal point in time has been reached in the ongoing negotiations under the auspices of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) towards the adoption of regulations for the commercial exploitation of mineral resources in the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction. The ISA has a mandate to ensure that activities in the Area, legally designated as ‘common heritage of humankind’, are carried out for the benefit of humankind as a whole. Yet, there is a growing sense of unease with the potential imminence of the commercial exploitation phase, and concern that the implementation of all components of the common heritage principle, including its environmental and distributive ambitions, will be compromised in the interest of a handful of industry stakeholders. This article dives under the surface of these tensions by asking how the public interest in a global commons can become constructed in a way that conflates diverse and opposing interests in favour of value extraction by the private sector, revealing the ambivalent role of international law in the process. It uses the concept of ‘false necessity’ to question the apparent urgency and inevitability of commercial exploitation, more specifically to the extent it obscures and pre-empts more inclusive conceptions of ‘benefit’ for humankind. By shifting the focus from the much-debated risks of deep seabed mining to the notion of benefit, the article illuminates the inherent contradictions and distributional asymmetries obscured by the conflated yet purportedly universal conception of public interest in exploitation.

International law today recognizes that cultural heritage includes not only tangible but also intangible cultural heritage, encompassing traditions, customs, practices, and beliefs. While protections for tangible cultural heritage have existed since at least the nineteenth century, only relatively recently has the law gone beyond piecemeal human rights protections and extended direct and specific treaty protections to intangible cultural heritage through the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The push for this Convention was linked with broader discontent within the Global south at the prioritization of Eurocentric ‘monumentalism’ in international cultural heritage law. Nevertheless, in situations of armed conflict, the emphasis reverts to protection of tangible cultural heritage as international humanitarian law does not go beyond general civilian protections to directly address the protection of intangible cultural heritage in conflict. While the 2003 Convention provides for emergency assistance, its broadly-worded terms do not indicate the shape its other obligations would take in armed conflict or the manner in which they would interact with rules governing the conduct of hostilities. This article examines, first, the degree and extent to which the 2003 Convention’s various obligations in relation to safeguarding intangible cultural heritage circumvent de-prioritization and continue to apply in conflict; and second, the manner in which they can be integrated with rules of international humanitarian law to better protect intangible cultural heritage during active hostilities.

This article maps the elements of the epistemically legitimate argumentative space of judges in scientific disputes, where scientific facts and arguments intrude into the legally relevant aspects of the legal controversy. The article distinguishes four main forms of legitimate hybrid reasoning styles. It identifies the epistemic risks threatening the legitimacy of decisions in light of the corresponding limits of the epistemically legitimate argumentative space. The article concludes by discussing the parameters which help judges to select the appropriate reasoning style in particular cases, such as the judicial institution’s epistemic capacities, practical feasibility, and the role science plays in the fabric of legal rules.

Res judicata is a core belief of international law; the ICJ’s judgments are seen as final and without appeal, to doubt that is apparently equal to calling the entire international legal order into question. But the doctrine is not as absolute as the orthodoxy makes it out to be, neither as a matter of positive international law nor as a statement of legal theory. Even final judgements are not always final and appeals procedures and judicial review are not special in that they engage res judicata whereas regular legal change does not; rather, both do from a legal-theoretical vantage-point. This article makes the point by looking at ICJ interpretation judgments under Article 60; it argues that, far from leaving the original judgment’s res judicata intact, interpretation judgments actually impinge or even disrupt it. The article discusses ICJ interpretation judgments (the 2013 judgment in Preah Vihear serving as convenient example), introduces Adolf Julius Merkl’s Error Calculus theory as the theoretical framework best suited to analysing the nomomechanics and critiques the Preah Vihear interpretation judgment as change disguised as a hermeneutic exercise. It then turns the critical enterprise on its head to look at the Error Calculus theory itself to lay the groundwork for an even more audacious argument that the Error Calculus does not depend on errors in the narrow sense of the word: it is neither an ex post ratification of an imperfect norm nor a confirmation of invalidity, but the derogation of a perfectly valid norm.

The subject of this analysis is the role that regional trade agreements (RTAs) play in balancing between personal data commodification and protection of privacy and personal data, approached from the perspective of Karl Polanyi’s theory of double movement. We analyse provisions on cross-border information transfers and data protection in order to establish the models for balancing between the ideas of personal data commodification and social protection, understood as allowing for the use of measures that ensure privacy and personal data protection. Our analysis indicates that there are two general models concerning the liberalization of cross-border information transfers: one model restricts states’ ability to restrict data flows while the other is more open to such measures. Next, we identify three primary models governing how data protection is treated in the agreements that liberalize data flows: one that is based on the inclusion of substantive standards of protection in the content of the given agreement; one that uses international standards as a proxy for establishing certain level of protection; and one that is based on national data protection laws. Combining identified models of liberalizing data flows with identified models of ensuring data protection allows us to show that the inclusion of seemingly similar provisions on cross-border data transfers in various RTAs has resulted in developing several different models for balancing between commodification of personal data and data protection.

This article argues for international legal change in human rights as a consequence of a states-as-bystander effect: When states do neither actively drive nor block change processes, and alternative state-empowered authorities exist in a legal field, states’ position at the sidelines opens a path for non-state actors to enact substantive change. In human rights law, this is a process they route through General Comments, a powerful instrument of the human rights treaty bodies to set, expand, and redefine standards for global human rights. This article bears its core argument of a states-as-bystander effect by taking a single norm, the necessity of water for human life, and tracing its change process from non-existent in human rights law, to a non-right, to a condition for other rights, and, finally, to the recognition of water and sanitation as independent rights at the international level. Ultimately, the analysis shows that non-actors can enact change to law, and do so, on the heels of states’ relegation to the periphery of the human rights system. This opened the door for certain actors – transnational coalitions of expert body members, human rights advocates and issue professionals – to use General Comments in a way that not only impacts international legal change but can also withstand state opposition.

The discrimination faced every day by LGBTQIA+ individuals does not disappear during armed conflict. On the contrary, such persons have been, and continue to be, targeted for particularly heinous human rights violations due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. And while international human rights law has, in the last two decades, made significant leaps in prohibiting discrimination on these grounds, international criminal law lags behind. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court only criminalizes persecution, an extreme form of discrimination, on grounds of gender and other grounds universally recognized in international law rather than on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. In the absence of clear textual criminalization of queer persecution, this article argues international law can be queerly reinterpreted to fit sexual orientation and gender identity into the confines of ‘gender’. However, while acknowledging the normative and expressive gains that could come from using international criminal law to pursue queer persecution, this article also notes the costs, including the flattening of queer discrimination into the narrow rubric of gender and suppressing its more radical principles. Therefore, while concluding international criminal law can be queerly reinterpreted, this article expresses doubts as to whether, in fact, it should.

In this article we adopt a political economic lens to analyse the revival of the concept of ecocide in present international legal scholarship and practice. The current campaign to codify the crime of ecocide under international criminal law represents the epitome of a problem-solving approach, which conceives of the law as external to society and as a corrective to its evils. Yet, a large body of critical literature has drawn attention to the constitutive role of international law and to the problems with its depoliticized approach when it comes to tackling global injustices. We build upon this diverse scholarship to illuminate how the technical, acontextual, and ahistorical legal debate on the codification of ecocide ends up normalizing the violent structures of extractive capitalism and its hierarchies. Further, we situate the proposed crime within the wider context of how international law regulates and constitutes the natural world. Drawing on critiques of sustainable development and of business and human rights discourse, we argue that the ‘imbroglio’ of ecocide, in its current legal definition, lies in presenting ecological preservation and devastation as simultaneously legitimate aims. The article ultimately raises the question of the role of international law in progressive political agendas, a question that could not be more pressing in times of entangled socio-ecological-economic disruptions.

Many contemporary armed conflicts are shaped by the reliance on airstrikes using traditional fighter planes or remotely piloted drones. As accounts of civilian casualties from airstrikes abound, the ethics and legality of individual airstrikes and broader targeting practices remain contested. Yet these concerns and debates are not new. In fact, a key attempt to regulate aerial warfare was made 100 years ago. In this article, we approach the regulation of aerial warfare through an examination of the 1923 Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare and the contemporary scholarly discussion of these rules. While the Draft Rules have never been converted into a treaty, they embody logics of thinking about civilians, technologies of aerial warfare, and targeting that are still resonating in contemporary discussions of aerial warfare. This article argues for a contextualized understanding of the Draft Rules as an attempt to adapt International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to the new technological realities while maintaining distinctions between different kinds of spaces and non-combatants. We argue that the Draft Rules prefigure later debates about the legality of aerial bombing by tacitly operating with a narrow understanding of the civilian and by offering a range of excuses and justifications for bombing civilians.

Digital open-source evidence has become ubiquitous in the context of modern conflicts, leading to an evolution in investigative practices within the context of mass atrocity crimes and international criminal law. Despite its extensive promulgation, international criminal tribunals have had few opportunities to address the admissibility of user-generated open-source evidence. Through semi-structured interviews with experts and analyses of primary and secondary sources, this article examines the current standards and practices governing the use of user-generated open-source evidence. Current practices illuminate a number of gaps in the realm of digital open-source evidence in international criminal law. This article posits the establishment of a standing international, investigative mechanism as a solution to a need for increased standardization and co-ordination within the realm of user-generated open-source evidence. By standardizing the collection and use of such evidence, investigative bodies will be prepared to more effectively serve the international justice community.

Legal systems across the world contain the obligation to prevent ‘absurd interpretations’ of law. In international law, an instruction to avoid ‘manifestly absurd’ interpretations can be found in Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This gives rise to at least two questions that I will take up in this article. First, what is meant by the ‘absurd’ that is to be avoided in legal interpretation. The short answer to this question is: no one knows exactly. The absurd, by its very nature, resists definition in pre-given categories, as I will argue on the basis of four core thinkers on the absurd: Søren Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Thomas Nagel. The second question is more technical and easier to answer: how should lawyers try to avoid absurd interpretations? Here, I turn to absurdist writing and the theatre of the absurd for assistance. Absurdist writing and theatre have developed a number of techniques to make the absurd appear, to let the audience experience that something is fundamentally out of tune. Lawyers use similar techniques, but in reverse and with an opposite purpose: they add exposition, narrative, reasonable language, and stable, rational legal personae. In this way, they boost the rationality and reasonableness of the legal order. However, to come full circle, it is exactly the pretension of rationality and reasonableness that makes the law vulnerable to manifestations of the absurd. The rationality of law is the springboard for the very same absurdity it tries to suppress.