Canadian commitments under trade and investment treaties have been an ongoing concern for Indigenous peoples. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) is the first Canadian treaty to include a general exception for measures that a party state “deems necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to [I]ndigenous peoples.” This exception is likely to afford Canada broad, but not unlimited, discretion to determine what its legal obligations to Indigenous peoples require. There is a residual risk that Canada’s reliance on the exception could be challenged through the CUSMA dispute settlement process. A CUSMA panel would not have the expertise necessary to decide inevitably complex questions related to what Canada’s legal obligations to Indigenous peoples require. While state-to-state cases under the North American Free Trade Agreement have been rare, a CUSMA panel adjudication regarding the Indigenous general exception risks damaging consequences for Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.

En mai 2019, le Canada a présenté sa soumission concernant son plateau continental étendu arctique à la Commission des limites du plateau continental. La délinéation des plateaux continentaux étendus, conformément à la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, résulte d’interprétations dans lesquelles s’entrelacent arguments scientifiques et juridiques à l’égard d’une situation géophysique singulière. Cet article examine la manière dont le Canada a composé avec la triple interprétation juridique, scientifique et factuelle à travers une étude articulée autour de la notion de “prolongement naturel.” Sont mis en relief les défis interprétatifs, mais aussi les opportunités que le Canada a saisies en participant au dégagement de consensus scientifiques et juridiques au soutien de la délinéation qu’il propose.

The establishment of a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is intended to be the guarantor of the proper application of the convention. Yet the decisions of courts and tribunals seized pursuant to the procedures under Section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS are in many regards difficult to reconcile and in some regards unable to form the basis for a jurisprudence constante. This article examines on an empirical basis the scope and limits of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism under UNCLOS, as applied by international courts and tribunals during a period of twenty years since the first decision in the Southern Bluefin Tuna case until the recent decision on preliminary objections in the Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

Depuis le milieu des années 1990, les principales Banques multilatérales de développement (BMD) jouent un rôle actif dans la lutte contre la corruption transnationale. La Banque mondiale (BM), suivie par les autres grandes banques régionales de développement, ont mis au point un système de sanctions appliqué aux entreprises et individus qui se livrent à des pratiques de corruption dans le cadre des projets d’investissements qu’elles financent. Les cinq grandes BMD ont récemment harmonisé leurs stratégies de lutte contre la corruption dans leurs opérations, en adoptant des définitions harmonisées des pratiques répréhensibles et des principes et directives communs pour les enquêtes. En 2010, ces dernières ont établi un système d’application mutuelle des décisions d’exclusion. Il s’agit clairement de mesures considérables prises au niveau multilatéral qui contribuent à lutter contre le problème de la corruption. Il est donc pertinent d’évaluer leur efficacité. Après avoir procédé à un examen approfondi et à une analyse critique du système de sanctions de la BM, le présent article conclut que malgré son importance, il n’est pas encore à la hauteur de ses ambitions de sanctionner et dissuader les acteurs internationaux corrompus. Par conséquent, l’article propose des solutions visant à améliorer ce système dont la nécessité n’est plus à démontrer.

The current international framework that purports to regulate the spread of communicable disease in the context of maritime traffic is a fragmented, internally inconsistent, and inadequately enforced patchwork of treaties (including the International Health Regulations (2005)) and customary international law. The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the current framework and revealed it to be inadequate to deal with a major global health emergency. States have imposed or failed to impose varying control measures, the effects of which have been witnessed on board passenger vessels around the world. The cruise industry, in particular, has a significant global economic impact; therefore, appropriate, enforceable international regulation is necessary to ensure the adequate control of future communicable disease outbreaks.

Depuis 2014, la Commission du droit international (CDI) étudie la question des normes impératives (jus cogens). Si ce projet a le mérite d’en éclaircir les aspects, cette contribution avance que certaines de ses observations peuvent aussi être assimilées à des “chevaux de Troie,” et pour deux raisons. Premièrement, certains principes entourant l’accès à l’impérativité pourraient favoriser la définition arbitraire de normes de jus cogens (rejet de la théorie de l’objecteur persistant en la matière, rôle des juridictions). Deuxièmement, certains effets attachés à l’impérativité pourraient être vecteurs de conséquences qui n’ont a priori pas été évaluées par la CDI (conformité des résolutions du Conseil de sécurité et des normes coutumières au jus cogens).

This article challenges the effectiveness of the prevailing interpretation of the contemporary use of force model that is centred on a decidedly narrow selection of relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter). In the now seventy-five years of the UN Charter era, predominant modes of armed conflict have evolved so as to be largely unrecognizable when compared to the model of war that was contemplated when negotiating and ratifying the Charter. Nonetheless, modes of engaging with an actual or contemplated use of force remain rooted in a model developed more than seven decades ago. This article suggests that a new frame of analysis is needed. The “Reframer” approach and “Purposes and Principles” model developed herein remain just as firmly grounded in the UN Charter as the prevailing interpretation. However, this novel approach and model incorporate a degree of nuance and adaptiveness that is not feasible when applying the prevailing interpretation of the contemporary use of force model.

Globalization has effectively enabled Canada’s domestically incorporated mining companies to escape the jurisdiction of the courts of the world, allowing them to carry out human rights abuses abroad with impunity. In February 2020, however, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark judgment, Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, which attempted to address this jurisdictional gap. This decision held that Canadian corporations could potentially be liable under domestic law for breaches of customary international law perpetrated abroad. The decision has been criticized for straying too far from a classically positivist conception of international law. This article argues that such criticisms are well founded insofar as the majority’s judgment implicitly relies on progressive human-centric theories of international law without adequately addressing how these are reconcilable with international law as it is currently applied. It then explores the ideas that drive the majority’s opinion in order to propose two alternative approaches to holding corporations accountable that are more readily reconcilable with traditional state-centric conceptions of international law. Adopting these revised approaches could less contentiously lead to corporate accountability before future domestic courts. Finally, this article considers the potential international developments and repercussions to which this and other forward-looking decisions could lead.

Cet article s’interroge sur la typologie des obligations internationales et, plus spécialement, la distinction entre les obligations de comportement et de résultat. Considérée comme opposant deux formes d’obligations — de s’efforcer ou de réussir — cette summa divisio est particulièrement utile dans l’examen de la violation du droit international, elle-même condition de l’engagement de la responsabilité internationale. À partir du constat d’une large utilisation dans la jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice, seront interrogés les critères, les conséquences mais aussi les vertus — et limites — de cette catégorisation.

The practice of arbitrators and counsel in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases simultaneously playing both roles — known as “double-hatting” — has been the subject of much controversy in recent debates on ISDS reform, notably, at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (UNCITRAL) Working Group III where a Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in International Investment Disputes is under discussion. While Canada has been less than consistent in its approaches to ISDS in recent international investment agreements (IIAs), its position against double-hatting has been rather constant. This article explores whether this stance reveals a commitment on the part of Canada towards increased judicialization of ISDS or reflects a “flavour of the month” reform likely to change with differing IIAs and negotiating partners. Analysis of Canada’s recent IIA practices, including its model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, released in May 2021, and the positions it has taken at UNCITRAL’s Working Group III, lead the author to conclude that Canada appears committed to increased judicialization of ISDS in the long run.

Au sein de l’Organisation des États américains (OÉA), la Commission interaméricaine des Droits de l’Homme (CIDH) et la Cour interaméricaine des Droits de l’Homme sont les deux principaux organes chargés de veiller à la protection des droits de la personne dans les Amériques. Ces instances sont habilitées à instruire des recours individuels intentés contre des États membres et portant sur des allégations de violations de la Convention américaine relative aux Droits de l’Homme (CADH) et d’autres instruments interaméricains applicables. La présente chronique portera sur certaines décisions rendues par la Cour pendant l’année 2020.