The decision of the US Supreme Court rendered in NML v. Argentina has enabled the vulture funds to enforce in full their claims against the payments to be made by Argentina in favour of those holders who had tendered their bonds under a previous exchange offer. This scenario may have a disruptive impact on the functioning of the financial markets and endanger the restructuring processes of sovereign debt. The race to the courts by the vulture funds could be stopped under the UNCTAD Principles on Responsible Financing where the behaviour of those creditors who acquire debt instruments of sovereigns in distress and remain aloof from a restructuring to secure preferential treatment is marked as abusive. Unfortunately, so far the legal status of this abusive behaviour is unable to overturn the interpretation of the pari passu clause under New York law given by the US Federal Courts which stands at the base of the problem. To overcome this impasse the suggestion is to insert in the UN proposal of a multilateral legal framework for sovereign restructuring processes a specific provision qualifying as overriding a mandatory restructuring plan approved through a certain quorum which has received certification by the IMF. This qualification would serve the purpose of applying the plan to all creditors, and not just to those who register under the process. Moreover, this qualification would be considered as part of the public policy of the states participating to the UN proposal so as to block the enforcement of judgments rendered in non-participating fora.

This article responds to five pieces published in the previous issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law, extolling the virtues of a new legal realism. I first express some doubts as to whether an awful lot can and should be expected from yet another new approach to the study of international law; earlier approaches widely heralded have quietly disappeared from sight, sometimes without leaving much trace. Subsequently, I discuss the extent to which the new international legal realism conceptualizes its notion of empirical reality, followed by a discussion on which interests the new insights spawned by new legal realism are to serve.

The UN Security Council's involvement in the area of international criminal justice raises concerns about judicial independence. Of primary concern in this study is the degree to which this political organ has come to determine and restrict jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals, with the effect of excluding cases involving alleged grave crimes by actors whose presence in situations of which the Council is seized is supported by its permanent members. This control, it will be argued, undermines the basic conditions for a sound administration of justice, as it impedes these tribunals from selecting the cases that may come before them in accordance with respect for human rights and the rule of law. More specifically, restrictions imposed by political organs, leading to unjustified unequal treatment before the law and the courts of perpetrators and victims of grave crime in a given situation, are contrary to principles of equality and non-discrimination. A theory of international judicial independence should therefore extend to a consideration of the legality of such restrictions and acknowledge it as an essential requirement of independence.

This article provides a brief overview of legal realism and sketches out its implications for international law, using international environmental law as an example. Although the ‘new’ legal realism is not especially new, its anti-formalist, pragmatic perspective still offers important insights about the international legal process, and serves as a useful counterpoint to a new variety of formalism, which continues to resist the social scientific study of international law. Among its distinctive elements, legal realism views international law instrumentally, is empirical in orientation, and focuses on the processes by which international law is developed, implemented, and enforced, rather than limiting itself to international law doctrine. The fear of critics is that, by de-emphasizing the internal point of view and the concept of legal validity, legal realism deprives international law of the very features that make it a distinctive enterprise.

Since the Simmenthal case of the ECJ, the national judge has been coined the ‘ordinary judge of EU law’, meaning that this judge has the primary responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness of EU law through different techniques. While there has been a large amount of research on the role of domestic courts in relation to international law, the question of whether the domestic judge could also be characterized as the ‘ordinary judge of international law’ in the sense the phrase is used regarding EU law has never been raised. This article identifies the contents of the phrase in the context of EU law in order to test it against international law. It undertakes this by transposing the different types of invocability – direct effect, invocability of consistent interpretation, invocability of damages, and invocability of exclusion – which set the national judge as a primary judge of EU law, to international law before domestic judges. While the analysis relies mainly on French case law relating to international law, comparisons are drawn, where relevant, between the case law of this jurisdiction and that of other jurisdictions in order to establish a general trend. This permits the conclusion that, while the French courts remain reluctant to ensure the effectiveness of international law through the adoption of the different techniques of invocability, other domestic judges behave as ordinary judges of international law in a way that is very similar to the way the national judges treat EU law.

Since the post-Second World War tribunals, only a few scholars have attempted to draw a definitional distinction between international and national criminal courts. Remarkable exceptions include Robert Woetzel, who in 1962 categorized criminal courts according to ‘the involvement of the international community’, and Sarah Williams, who 50 years later relied on the same factor in her definitions of ‘hybrid’ and ‘internationalized’ criminal tribunals.

Through examples of rulings by the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, this article will demonstrate that ‘the involvement of the international community’ is at best an unhelpful criterion when it comes to resolving questions, e.g. regarding the immunity of state officials and the relevance of domestic law, that require a determination of the legal system in which the court operates.

Instead, it is argued that only criminal tribunals deriving their authority from international law should be labelled ‘international’, while the term ‘national criminal court’ should apply to tribunals set up under national law. This terminology would underline that issues concerning jurisdiction and applicable law must be settled according to each court's constituent document and other relevant sources of law, depending on the legal system to which this document belongs.

This rejoinder responds to criticisms by Jan Klabbers and Ino Augsberg of ‘The New Legal Realist Approach to International Law’ (Leiden Journal of International Law, Volume 28:2, 2015). The New Legal Realism brings together empirical and pragmatic perspectives in order to build theory regarding how law obtains meaning, is practised, and changes over time. In contrast with conceptualists, such as Augsberg, legal realists do not accept the priority of concepts over facts, but rather stress the interaction of concepts with experience in shaping law's meaning and practice. Klabbers, as a legal positivist, questions the value of the turn to empirical work and asks whether it is a fad. This rejoinder contends that the New Legal Realism has deep jurisprudential roots in Europe and the United States, constituting a third stream of jurisprudence involving the development of sociolegal theory, in complement with, but not opposed to, analytic and normative theory.

This article discusses the contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to mitigating difficulties arising from the fragmentation of international law. It argues that the Court's case law provides insights and good practices to be followed. First, the article furnishes evidence that the Court has developed an autonomous and distinct interpretative principle to construe the European Convention on Human Rights by taking other norms of international law into account. Second, it offers a blueprint of the methodology that the Court employs when engaging with external norms in the interpretation process. It analyses the Court's approach to subtle contextual differences between similar or identical international norms and its position towards the requirements of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It concludes that international courts are developing innovative interpretative practices, which may not be strictly based on the letter of the VCLT.

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court has remained largely uncontested during the first 10 years of its operation. Today, the jurisdictional cooling-off period seems to have run its course. The Prosecutor has opened the first Article 15 investigations and prosecutions in Kenya. The defence has been active in challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. Judges at the pre-trial stage have taken a more inquisitive approach to jurisdictional assessments. This awakening has led to the identification of novel legal issues. One of them is the applicable burden and standard of proof for defence challenges to jurisdiction. So far, this issue has been addressed largely through interpretation of the Statute. The Court's first decisions seem to fluctuate significantly on this point. From pronouncements accepting that such burden and standard do exist and seeking to articulate them, to rulings implying that they do not exist altogether, the Court's case law reveals a measure of inconsistency and a lack of reasoning. This article seeks to expose the different positions assumed on the matter, typically as a result of the judges’ efforts to balance procedural efficiency and fair trial considerations. In doing so, we will reflect critically on the causes and effects of the current state of the law and propose a reorientation of the case law through the use of other relevant international jurisprudence.

In this separate rejoinder to Jan Klabbers' and Ino Augsberg's comments to the articles in the symposium on New Legal Realism in International Law (Leiden Journal of International Law, Volume 28:2, 2015), we respond from the point of view of the European New Legal Realism (ENLR) as propounded in our initial contribution to the symposium. Agreeing with Ingo Venzke who wrote in his introduction to the symposium that ‘stakes are high’ in the debate over international law and methodology, we argue that both Klabbers and Augsberg, each in their own way, fail to take sufficiently seriously the ENLR challenge to doctrinal scholarship. We argue that Klabbers underestimates the evergreen and persistent character of this challenge when he portrays the current push for New Legal Realism as merely a whimsy fashion wave. And we argue that Augsberg's essentially Kelsenian defence of doctrinal scholarship is insufficiently robust because it inherits the excess epistemological liberalism of its underlying Neo-Kantianism.

On 3 February 2015, the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgment on the merits of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) case. This Judgment concludes the Court's involvement with allegations of state responsibility for genocide in the Balkans, which has spanned more than two decades since Bosnia brought a case against Serbia under the Genocide Convention in 1993. The many judgments and separate and dissenting opinions in the Bosnia and Croatia genocide cases have not only addressed the elements of the crime of genocide itself and the obligations imposed by the Genocide Convention, but have also considered jurisdictional questions, matters of state succession, and the relationship between the International Court of Justice and the work of the ad hoc tribunals, in particular the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

The Leiden Journal of International Law has organized a mini-symposium about the Croatia Judgment in order to address this important decision. The six articles in this symposium address several of the main issues raised by the judgment. A brief summary of the judgment follows.

This article argues that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) uses external references as a tool to enhance ‘constitutional justice’. This technique is illustrated by the Court's contribution to an important shift in migration law beginning in the late 1980s and resulting in an enhanced scheme for protection against expulsion in Europe. This shift reflects the changing role of the ECtHR from a court primarily concerned with providing ‘individual justice’ to a court aiming at enabling ‘constitutional justice’. The aim of the article is to contextualize the aforementioned shift with a historical view and to understand it in methodological terms. It argues that the Court supports its dynamic interpretation of the right to privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights in crucial judgments by reference to often non-binding instruments issued by the Council of Europe and to other human rights treaties. In this regard, the case of protection against expulsion illustrates a particular feature of the Court's turn to ‘constitutional justice’, namely the increased application of the principle of systemic integration. This allowed the Court to develop a meaningful and comprehensive protection scheme in the first place. However, the article reveals that once the substantial standard developed by the ECtHR has been formally implemented in domestic law, domestic decisions are reviewed with significantly less scrutiny. This limitation may again be explained by the ‘constitutional turn’ which results in a pragmatic tendency to proceduralization in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is surrounded by controversies and criticisms. This article highlights some patterns in the arguments, showing that many plausible criticisms reflect inescapable dyads. For any position that Court could take, one or more powerful criticisms can inevitably be advanced. The tension can be obscured because shared terms are often recruited for opposite meanings. Awareness of these patterns can (i) provide a framework to better situate arguments, (ii) reveal the deeper complexity of the problems, and (iii) help us to evaluate and improve upon the arguments. Awareness of dyadic structures can lead to a debate that is more generous, as we acknowledge the difficulty and uncertainty of choosing among flawed options, yet also more rigorous, as we attempt to articulate and improve upon our frameworks of evaluation. The goal of this article is to encourage a better conversation that can generate better insights.

Prepared as a working paper for the International Law Commission, this article discusses whether there can be said to be a general customary law of human rights, or whether any such customary law might be of a special nature.

When it first encountered the Genocide Convention in its 1951 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice recognized that the treaty reflected the ‘most elementary principles of morality’. Its provisions were to be read broadly, in light of the Convention's transcendent object and purpose. This expansive approach stands in contrast with the narrow interpretation of Article IX in the recent Judgment in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) case. This article is a commentary on the retroactive obligation to punish genocide under the Convention with regard to acts occurring prior to its entry into force for that state. It concludes that the Court's narrow interpretation of its jurisdiction ratione temporis raises wider questions for its contemporary jurisprudence, namely, whether it will interpret human rights treaties enshrining fundamental values any differently than other international instruments.

The Haiti cholera claims are focused upon the UN's violation of the rights of individuals affected by the cholera outbreak to access a remedy. The UN's absolute immunity from jurisdiction of national courts is counterbalanced by its duty to provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for private law claims. The UN has not only failed to provide those alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, but has repeatedly stated that no claims are receivable in these circumstances. Here we set out that even if the UN is able to shield itself from private law claims by using the cloak of absolute immunity, the UN might be held responsible for human rights violations arising from the cholera outbreak in Haiti. This article is concerned with the broader issue of whether the UN has violated and continues to violate individuals' right to health in Haiti.

The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court (ICC) up to the Lubanga judgment showed definite interpretive trends on the modes of principal liability. This article aims first to make a critical assessment of these trends by focusing on methodological and substantive aspects. On the one hand, the practice of having resort to theories derived from Continental legal systems, albeit legitimate, is based on a methodology that raises some concerns as to the selection and (mis)interpretation of such theories. On the other hand, the Court has clearly adopted a wide interpretation of some critical elements in which the different modes of principal liability are grounded. This choice has caused a significant expansion of the scope of principal liability as well as a breach of the principles of legality and of individual criminal responsibility. In our opinion, the underpinning of these interpretations is a flawed understanding of the criteria for distinguishing between principals and accessories.

This perspective has been overturned by the Katanga judgment, on which the second part of this article will focus. This judgment correctly argues that the distinction between perpetrators and accomplices is grounded only on the autonomous or vicarious character of their contribution to the offence. Furthermore, it follows a partly different approach as to both the methodology and the interpretation of the constitutive elements of principal liability. In our view, this approach better fits both the relevant statutory provision and the basic principles of criminal law.

In the decision on the second Genocide case (Croatia v. Serbia) the ICJ did not deviate from its ruling of 2007 (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) in matters of evidence. A comparison between the two cases nevertheless shows subtle but interesting nuances. Whereas in the first Genocide case the Court was confronted with a ICTY finding that a genocide had indeed been committed in Srebrenica in July 1995, in the present case the ICTY Prosecutor had not even indicted any Serbian or Croatian organ of such a crime. The ICJ was able to find the actus reus of genocide in many instances, both on the part of Serbia and Croatia, but it found that neither party had been able to prove the existence of the mens rea, either by relying on a pattern of conduct, or even by relying on the transcript of a governmental meeting. This throws a disquieting light on the actual capacity of the Court to deal with claims of commission of genocide, as distinguished from claims of lack of prevention or repression.