Arbitration — Jurisdiction — North American Free Trade Agreement — Article 1121 — Consequences of a failure to comply with Article 1121 — Whether particular formulation of words required to provide valid consent to arbitration — Whether failure to comply with requirements of Article 1121 denying Tribunal jurisdiction — Article 1119 — Article 1122 — Whether defect in notice of intent to submit claim to arbitration under Article 1119 and 1122 denying Tribunal jurisdiction — Whether defect in notice of intent to submit a claim to arbitration a curable issue of admissibility

Arbitration — Procedure — North American Free Trade Agreement — Chapter 11 — Procedure for submitting a claim to arbitration — Procedure for valid notice of intent to submit a claim to arbitration — Defects in notice — Consequence of defect in notice — Efficient administration of justice — Prejudice to respondent

Economics, trade and finance — Foreign investment — North American Free Trade Agreement — Article 1117 — Meaning of ownership or control of an enterprise — Full or virtually full ownership — Shareholding required to demonstrate full or virtually full ownership of an enterprise — Control of an enterprise — De facto control — Collective shareholding and alignment of votes

Treaties — Interpretation — North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) — Article 1119 — Article 1122 — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Article 31 — Failure to comply with requirements of Article 1119 — Whether failure to comply with requirements of Article 1119 vitiating other Party’s consent to arbitration under Article 1122 — Context of Chapter 11 NAFTA — Object and purpose of NAFTA

Human rights — Freedom of thought, conscience and religion — Neutrality — Employer policy of neutrality — Applicant dismissed for wearing religious clothing — European Union Directive 2000/78 — Discrimination — Direct discrimination — Indirect discrimination — Whether employer prohibition on religious clothing constituting discrimination under Directive 2000/78 — The law of the European Union

Human rights — Treaties — Scope of application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Application during international armed conflict — Application to State in respect of events outside territory of that State

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Human rights — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — International armed conflict — Active hostilities — Occupation — Legal space — Effective control over an area — State agent authority and control over individuals

Human rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 — Right to life — Procedural aspect of Article 2 — Article 3 — Torture and inhuman treatment — Prisoners of war — Detained civilians — Article 5 — Arbitrary detention — Detention of civilians during international armed conflict — Article 8 — Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 1 — Protection of property — Right to education — Article 2 of Protocol No 4 — Freedom of movement — Right to displaced civilians to return home — Whether administrative practice in violation of Convention — Relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law

Territory — Occupation — International armed conflict — Human rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Effective control over territory — State obligations under Convention while occupying territory of another contracting State

Claims — Exhaustion of local remedies — Application in human rights cases — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 35 — Whether requirement to exhaust domestic remedies in cases of administrative practice in violation of Convention

War and armed conflict — Applicable law — Relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Occupied territory — Prisoners of war — Civilian population of occupied territory

International criminal law — Crimes against humanity — Universal jurisdiction — Criminal procedure — Private citizen seeking to commence prosecution in Australia for crimes against humanity under Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Section 13(a) — Criminal Code (Cth), Section 268.11 providing that proceedings may only be prosecuted “in the name of the Attorney-General” and with the Attorney-General’s consent — Whether right to commence private prosecution ousted by contrary legislative intention

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, 1998 — International Criminal Court Act 2002 (Cth) — Australia’s international obligations under Rome Statute — Offences against international law incorporated as offences under Australian law — Primacy of Australia’s right to exercise its jurisdiction with respect to crimes within jurisdiction of International Criminal Court — Whether private citizen having right to commence prosecution in Australia for crimes against humanity under Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) — The law of Australia

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Admissibility — Treaties — North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994 — Treaty interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Effet utile doctrine — Whether one treaty interpretation technique dominating others

Arbitration — Consent to arbitration — North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994 (“NAFTA”) — Pre-arbitration requirements under Article 1119 — Whether consent to arbitration conditioned upon fulfilment of Article 1119 requirements — Notice of intent — Purpose of notice of intent under Article 1119 of NAFTA — Whether defect in notice of intent vitiating consent under Article 1122 of NAFTA — Whether pre-arbitration procedural matters jurisdictional or admissibility issues — Standard and scope of review of tribunals’ decisions — International Commercial Arbitration Act 2017

Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Article 31(3) — Legal submissions as subsequent practice — Whether NAFTA Parties’ legal submission constituting subsequent practice under Article 31(3)(b) of Vienna Convention — Definition of subsequent practice — Jurisdictional error

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994 — Decisions of international courts and tribunals — Decisions of Ontario Court of Appeal — Whether binding — Review of international arbitration awards — International Commercial Arbitration Act 2017 — Whether international arbitration tribunals acting within their authority — The law of Canada

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Whether Italian courts having to declare that they lacked jurisdiction where cases brought against States for conduct amounting to crimes under international law — Relevance of judgment of 3 February 2012 of International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) — Change in earlier line of jurisprudence requiring courts to lift immunity when conduct of impleaded foreign States amounting to crimes under international law — Relevance of Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 giving effect to ICJ’s judgment of 3 February 2012 — Conformity of Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 with Italian Constitution — Constitutionality of Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 giving effect to Article 94(1) of United Nations Charter, 1945 — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 in turn giving effect to Article 11 of Italian Constitution — Whether Italian courts lacking jurisdiction

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Decisions of international courts — Judgment of International Court of Justice regarding Italian court decisions denying immunity — Legislation to implement judgment — Whether constitutional — The law of Italy

State immunity — Enforcement of foreign judgments — Creation of judicial mortgage (ipoteca giudiziale) in enforcement proceedings — Mandatory stay of proceedings — Judgment of International Court of Justice of 3 February 2012 — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Constitutional Court’s judgment no 238 of 22 October 2014 — Whether German-owned State property immune from execution — Villa Vigoni — Whether Germany waiving right to enjoy immunity from execution in respect of Villa Vigoni — Relevance of use made of Villa Vigoni by Germany — Evidence concerning use made of Villa Vigoni by Germany — Whether Supreme Court of Cassation able to make decision on point of fact concerning use made of Villa Vigoni by Germany — Whether Court of Appeal’s decision to be quashed — Whether Court of Appeal’s decision inconsistent with reasoning of appealed judgment — Possibility of enforcement proceedings against property other than Villa Vigoni not used for public purposes — The law of Italy

State immunity — Enforcement proceedings — Attachment of credits owed by third parties — Power of attorney — Formal requirements of powers of attorney made abroad — Translation of powers of attorney — Admissibility of appeal to Supreme Court of Cassation — Vagueness of application for appeal — Whether appellant’s arguments having to be raised before different court — Legal basis for enforcement proceedings — Whether judge presiding over enforcement proceedings having to verify existence of legal basis — Whether verification extending to questions as to scope of legal basis — Whether legal basis crystallizing at the time when judgment of which enforcement was sought becoming final — Whether subsequent changes immaterial in enforcement proceedings and having to be raised by challenging judgment on the merits — Whether questions as to jurisdiction of Italian courts irrelevant in enforcement proceedings — Whether judgment of International Court of Justice of 3 February 2012 directly binding on Italian courts

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Decisions of international courts — International Court of Justice’s (“ICJ”) judgment of 3 February 2012 — Whether directly binding on Italian courts — Italian Parliament’s Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 giving effect to ICJ’s judgment — Declaration of unconstitutionality of Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Whether necessary to follow law as ascertained by Constitutional Court — The law of Italy

State immunity — Immunity from civil jurisdiction — Immunity in relation to acts amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity — Jurisprudence of Supreme Court of Cassation on jurisdictional immunity — Whether immunity lifted where foreign State’s acts war crimes or crimes against humanity — Judgment of International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) of 3 February 2012 — Whether Italy internationally responsible for not recognizing Germany’s immunity under customary international law — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Change in jurisprudence of Supreme Court of Cassation on jurisdictional immunity — Constitutional Court’s judgment no 238 of 22 October 2014 — Whether Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 unconstitutional — Whether Italian courts denying jurisdictional immunity where foreign States perpetrating war crimes or crimes against humanity — Supreme Court of Cassation reverting to earlier jurisprudence — Whether Court of Appeal of Florence taking change in jurisprudence into account — Whether Court of Appeal’s judgment quashed — Whether case to be remitted to Court of First Instance

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Decisions of international courts — International Court of Justice’s judgment of 3 February 2012 — Whether Italy internationally responsible for not recognizing Germany’s immunity under customary international law — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Change in jurisprudence of Supreme Court of Cassation on jurisdictional immunity — Constitutional Court’s judgment no 238 of 22 October 2014 — Whether Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 unconstitutional — Whether Italian courts denying jurisdictional immunity where foreign States perpetrating war crimes or crimes against humanity — Supreme Court of Cassation reverting to earlier jurisprudence — Whether Court of Appeal of Florence taking change in jurisprudence into account — Whether Court of Appeal’s judgment quashed — Whether case to be remitted to Court of First Instance

International criminal law — War crimes and crimes against humanity — State immunity — Immunity from civil jurisdiction — Immunity in relation to acts amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity — Judgment of International Court of Justice of 3 February 2012 — Jurisprudence of Italian courts — The law of Italy

State immunity — Restrictive doctrine of State immunity — Whether acts of this case private legal acts — Whether acts of this case sovereign — Assessment — Customary international law — International conventions — Legislative trends in various countries — Case law — International Court of Justice — Italian courts — Whether exceptions to State immunity — Whether this case exceptional — Sovereign acts — Peremptory norms — Crimes against humanity — Whether reasonable for Korean court to have jurisdiction over Japan — Whether State immunity applicable

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — State immunity — Applicability — Treaties — Korean written laws — Relevance — Customary international law — International conventions — Legislative trends in various countries — Case law — International Court of Justice — Italian courts — Whether exceptions to State immunity — Whether this case exceptional — Sovereign acts — Peremptory norms — Crimes against humanity — Interpretation of law — Whether conclusions unreasonable or unjust — Korean Constitution — Whether highest norm in legal order — Rights of victims — Damage to individuals — Reparations for individuals — Failure of lawsuits in other countries — Respect for sovereign States — Whether exception to State immunity where State violating peremptory norm — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Crimes against humanity — Use of “comfort women” in Korea — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having international jurisdiction over this case — Whether exception to State immunity where State violating peremptory norm — Whether State immunity applicable — International jurisdiction — Relevant legal principles — Assessment — Article 2(1) of Private International Act — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction over litigation relating to extraterritorial cases when venue Korea

International criminal law — Crimes against humanity — Whether acts of this case constituting crime against humanity — Whether exception to State immunity where State violating peremptory norm — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction

War and armed conflict — Treatment of civilians — Annexation of territory — Imperial Japan occupying Korean Peninsula — Annexation Treaty, 1910 — Asia-Pacific War — Military strategy of Imperial Japan — Wartime “comfort stations” — Wartime “comfort women” — Imperial Japan mobilizing “comfort women” from Korean Peninsula — Plaintiffs subjected to violence and sexual assaults by Japanese soldiers — Plaintiffs suffering physical and psychological damage — Plaintiffs seeking compensation from Japan — Reparations for individuals — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction

Damages — Compensation — Post-war — Wartime “comfort stations” — Imperial Japan mobilizing “comfort women” from Korean Peninsula — Military strategy of Imperial Japan — Plaintiffs claiming reparations for physical and psychological damage — Whether acts of this case constituting crime against humanity — Responsibility for indemnification for damages — Applicable law — Assessment of illegality of acts of this case — Scope of responsibility for indemnification for damages — Reparations for individuals — Plaintiffs seeking reparations from Japan as successor to Imperial Japan — Whether Japan obligated to pay reparations to plaintiffs

Treaties — Application — Scope — Claims Agreement, 1965 — 2015 Agreement — Effect on plaintiffs’ right to claim reparations for damage — Whether Agreements extinguishing plaintiffs’ right to claim — The law of the Republic of Korea

State immunity — Immunity from prosecution — Criminal proceedings — Instrumentalities of foreign States — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 (“FSIA”) — Whether District Court having jurisdiction to prosecute instrumentalities of foreign States — 18 USC Section 3231 — Scope — Whether terms of Section 3231 encompassing alleged criminal offences — Doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity — FSIA — Relevance — Whether FSIA addressing civil suits only — Whether FSIA providing instrumentalities of foreign States with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in United States courts

Treaties — Interpretation — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Whether addressing civil suits exclusively — Whether providing foreign States and their instrumentalities with immunity from criminal proceedings — The law of the United States