Since the entry into force of the European Convention on Human Rights there have been many serious conflicts in Europe. This article examines the role played by the Convention in two of those conflicts: that in Northern Ireland between supporters of the territory remaining part of the United Kingdom and supporters of Northern Ireland becoming part of a reunified Ireland, and that in Turkey between those who advocate for a unified Turkish State and those who want a Turkey which grants greater rights to Kurds and accepts greater autonomy for the Kurdish-dominated southeast region. The principal goal is to compare how the institutions in Strasbourg have responded to applications lodged by victims of human rights abuses allegedly committed during the two conflicts. The comparison seeks to identify to what extent the European Court of Human Rights has adopted principles and practices which can contribute to a reduction in human rights abuses during times of conflict.

The ECtHR is in the process of refining its conceptual tools for determining the responsibility of the States Parties to the ECHR acting in execution of a Security Council resolution. Where the implementation of resolutions involving the use of force is concerned, the Court's recent case law has shown a shift towards systematic acceptance of the extraterritorial scope of the ECHR. As to whether the conduct in issue should be attributed to the States Parties or to the UN, the Court now makes a clear distinction between operations authorized by the Security Council and UN peacekeeping operations. The implementation of UN economic sanctions will be addressed differently according to whether or not the respondent State is a member of the EU. The criterion of ‘equivalent protection’ is only applicable in the former scenario. And in any event, it needs to be applied cautiously on a case-by-case basis. As regards the enforcement of economic sanctions by non-EU Member States, the Court tends to interpret Security Council resolutions in a manner consistent with the obligations deriving from the ECHR. More generally, the Court's approach is oriented towards systemic harmonization rather than towards normative conflict.

Three common law countries—the UK, Canada and Australia—have significantly expanded citizenship revocation laws as a counterterrorism response. This article provides a detailed examination of these laws, their development and their use. It also explores and critiques the extent to which the laws shift citizenship away from fundamental common law principles, and the means by which such a shift has been justified.

This article considers the influence of teachings of publicists on the development of international law. The category of ‘teachings of publicists’ is not a homogeneous one. The article argues that it can be divided into: entities that have been empowered by States to conclude teachings, such as the International Law Commission; expert groups, such as the Institut de Droit International; and ‘ordinary’ publicists. The teachings of ordinary publicists are also of different types and include digests, treatises, textbooks, monographs, journal articles, and blog posts. Only by breaking down the category into its various types can the influence of the teaching of publicists on the development of international law be properly gauged. Even then, it can prove rather difficult to pin down the notion of ‘influence’. Standard assessments of influence focus on the extent to which teachings are cited by courts and tribunals, in particular by the International Court of Justice. However, that approach privileges the role of courts and tribunals in the development of international law and overlooks the role of other actors. As such, the present article offers a different assessment of influence. It identifies the actors that comprise the community of international lawyers and analyses the various interactions that take place between these actors and the teachings of publicists. It is through this interaction, of which citation is but part, that the influence of the teachings of publicists can properly be determined.

International lawyers and courts consider the principle of systemic integration to be a potential answer to difficulties arising from the fragmentation of public international law. This article questions the application of this approach in the context of human rights treaties. It is argued, first, that in many instances, systemic integration raises serious interpretational and jurisdictional concerns and, second, that systemic integration may give rise to a less diverse international law.

The article analyses the recent reform of contract law in France. The section of the Civil Code on the law of contract was amended and restructured in its entirety last year. The revised section came into force on 1 October 2016. The article considers its main innovations and compares them with the corresponding principles of English law and some contract law international instruments, mainly the UNIDROIT Principles and the Principles of European Contract Law. The article also assesses whether the new provisions achieve their stated aim of rendering French contract law more accessible, predictable, influential abroad and commercially attractive.

The United Nations Security Council is often described as an opaque body, closed in both membership and approach, and unaccountable for its conduct. For many years, this view has motivated calls for reform to the Council's working methods. This article aims to shine light on the Council's approach to process matters, recognizing the Council's preference for making change through developments in practice. The article reviews the efforts undertaken by the ‘Small Five’ group of States from 2005 to 2012, followed by the efforts since 2013 of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group, while also acknowledging the contributions made by Japan. With some proposals having received some degree of Council support, the sustained implementation of change is identified as the key priority. The article argues for the contextual application of the key concepts of transparency, engagement and accountability, as well as prevention, to provide a principled basis for both the maintenance and development of working methods reform.

In 2015, frustrated by the slow pace of negotiations in the International Maritime Organisation, the EU issued Regulation 2015/757 on the monitoring, reporting, and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport. Echoing the controversial Aviation Directive, the Regulation is intended to support a unilateral market-based measure, and includes emissions from outside EU territory. This raises the question whether, according to international law, the EU has jurisdiction to regulate such ‘extraterritorial’ circumstances. In exploring the appropriate jurisdictional bases, we argue that neither the Law of the Sea Convention, nor world trade law definitively decide this issue. We therefore devote more detailed attention to the customary international law of State jurisdiction supplementing these regimes. We seek to build on the existing analysis by examining climate change as a ‘common concern of mankind’. We argue that this emerging concept has distinct legal implications that can and should be accommodated within the interest-balancing exercise underlying the jurisdictional analysis.

The law of unilateral acts and the law of treaties are generally considered to be two distinct areas of international law. While the former governs the effect of unilateral undertakings by States, the latter governs, inter alia, the formation, interpretation, termination, and suspension of treaties. In 2011, the International Law Commission (ILC) concluded a two-decade study on reservations. One of its most remarkable insights is the argument that reservations ought to be considered ‘unilateral acts’. Thus, certain rules pertaining the law of unilateral acts ought to apply to reservations. This article critically examines the ILC's novel proposal as well as its attempt to provide answers to contemporary questions on reservations through conceptualizing reservations as unilateral acts.

Recent international jurisprudence has shown considerable uncertainty with regard to the delimitation of the territorial sea. While international tribunals endorse a two-stage approach to territorial sea delimitation, there is a lack of judicial consensus on the practical implementation of such an approach. This article argues that the rule-exception relationship between equidistance and special circumstances, as reflected in the drafting history of LOSC Article 15 and in jurisprudence prior to 2007, should inform the delimitation of the territorial sea. Cases since 2007 which have strayed from the earlier jurisprudence on LOSC Article 15, should be seen as a misconstruction of the law applicable to territorial sea delimitation.

This article examines the evolving way the ‘family’ and ‘family life’ have been understood in international and regional human rights instruments, and in the case law of the relevant institutions. It shows how the various structural components which are considered to constitute those concepts operate both between relevant adults and between adults and children. But it also shows that important normative elements, in particular, anti-discrimination norms, operate both to undermine the perception of some structures as constituting ‘family’, and to modify those structures themselves. This raises the question how far human rights norms should be seen as protecting family units in themselves or the individual members that constitute them.

Cross-border transactions and resultant legal proceedings often cause problems. One major problem is knowing which law should govern the transaction and any legal proceedings. Cross-border insolvencies in the EU are subject to the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EIR) but this legislation does not determine which substantive insolvency law rules apply in a given insolvency. There are many differences in the insolvency rules applicable in the various EU Member States and this has caused concern in relation to the avoidance of transactions entered into by an insolvent prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings. In light of this, the paper examines options to address divergence between national avoidance rules. One option, harmonization, is analysed as well as its possible benefits and drawbacks.

While countries that receive refugees have certain legal obligations to assist and protect them, the legal duties of other States to step in and help relieve this burden is less clear. Despite multiple proposals, a mechanism to systematically, equitably and predictably allocate responsibilities between States at a global level has still not been agreed. The UN's High-Level Summit on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees on 19 September 2016 held some promise in this regard, but the resulting New York Declaration was more muted than earlier drafts. This article seeks to provide a unique insight into the meaning of responsibility-sharing and international cooperation from the perspective of individual States. It does so by examining statements they have made at various UN fora over the past decade. It focuses on the two main methods of sharing responsibilities, namely the provision of financial and other assistance to host countries, and the admission of refugees. It then considers the extent to which States perceive responsibility-sharing to be a legal obligation, as opposed to a voluntary undertaking, and analyses this in light of expert opinion. Finally, it discusses the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, a concept drawn from international environmental law, and considers whether and how it might apply in the international refugee law context.

Evidence suggests that commodity derivatives speculation contributed to extraordinary patterns of grain price volatility that led to a global food crisis in 2007–11. People in countries throughout the world are increasingly dependent on international commodity markets for access to food. Almost everywhere, now, the value of food is determined by a single condensed symbol of its worth—its price. Persuaded of the need to ensure that this measure of value is not put at risk of distortion in the pursuit of financial profit, governments in the US and in the EU are now implementing new regulations designed to curb ‘excessive’ levels of speculation in derivative markets. Carrying out an analysis of these regulatory measures, the article demonstrates that both sets of reforms suffer from a critical limitation: They are predicated on an inaccurate understanding of how activity in commodity derivative markets can impact on underlying food prices. If the new regulations for commodity derivative markets are not up to the task, as this article argues that they are not, a more fundamental revision of global economic structures may be required if the basic needs of human beings are not to be subsumed to the interests of financial capital in the years to come.

The legal and technical issues relating to the outer continental shelf entitlements in the Central Arctic Ocean present several challenges, most of which are to be resolved in accordance with Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Recently, two coastal States in the Central Arctic Ocean have made fully fledged submissions relating to the Arctic to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Russia has made a revised submission that is currently being considered by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The submission of Denmark/Greenland will most likely only be considered in 10 or 15 years time.

Bank resolution is key to avoiding a repetition of the global financial crisis, where failing financial institutions had to be bailed out with taxpayers’ money. It permits recapitalizing banks or alternatively winding them down in an orderly fashion without creating systemic risk. Resolution measures, however, suffer from structural weakness. They are taken by States with territorially limited powers, yet they concern entities or groups with global activities and assets in many countries. Under traditional rules of private international law, these activities and assets are governed by the law of other States, which is beyond the remit of the State undertaking the resolution. This paper illustrates the conflict between resolution and private international law by taking the example of the European Union, where the limitations of cross-border issues are most acute. It explains the techniques and mechanisms provided in the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive (BRRD) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) Regulation to make resolution measures effective in intra-Eurozone cases, in intra-EU conflicts with non-Euro Member States and in relation to third States. However, it also shows divergences in the BRRD's transposition into national law and flaws that have been uncovered through first cases decided by national courts. A brief overview of third country regimes furthermore highlights the problems in obtaining recognition of EU resolution measures abroad. This article argues that regulatory cooperation alone is insufficient to overcome these shortcomings. It stresses that the effectiveness of resolution will ultimately depend on the courts. Therefore, mere soft law principles of regulatory cooperation are insufficient. A more stable and uniform text on resolution is required, which could take the form of a legislative guide or, ideally, of a model law. It is submitted that such a text could pave the way for greater effectiveness of cross-border resolution.

Adopting a comparative analysis, this article examines some recent litigation which has focused on indigenous peoples’ rights across the African continent. The aim is to explore both the potential and the challenges and limitations of litigation as a tool for supporting the rights of indigenous peoples. The article explores the extent to which a specific African jurisprudence is emerging on issues that are essential to indigenous peoples such as non-discrimination, self-identification, land rights and development. It also focuses on the practical issues that arise when engaging with litigation in order to explore the extent to which litigation can contribute to the legal empowerment of some of the most marginalized indigenous communities in Africa.

This article challenges the idea, both in domestic and international law, of defining terrorism. Using section 1 of the UK's Terrorism Act 2000 as an illustrative example, this article argues that a single definition of terrorism is invariably broad owing to the need to accommodate the lowest common denominator. This is damaging to the ‘principle of legality’ as recognized in British public law and the ECHR. Moreover, this problem is further exacerbated by the increasing application of counterterrorism legislation to non-international armed conflicts. This article therefore suggests an alternative solution: multiple definitions of terrorism whose breadth is dependent upon the specific circumstances for which they are designed. Fears that such an approach may amount to an ‘expression of inconsistency’ will be addressed by arguing that law's capacity to shape and frame public and political debate on the concept of terrorism is over-exaggerated. Legal definitions of terrorism therefore should remain primarily concerned with the legal rather than political function of defining terrorism.

In light of a recent shift in dialogue to hard law standards in the domain of business and human rights, this article provides an in-depth examination of the viability of a business and human rights treaty. It seeks to advance a valid theoretical model for a treaty that directly addresses non-State actors, explores the allocation of responsibility among multiple duty-bearers, and contemplates the scope, content, and enforcement of the potential obligations. By supplementing this analysis with analogies drawn from existing treaty regimes, the article aims to contribute positively to the normative development of international law in the field.

This article evaluates the role of the UN General Assembly (‘UNGA’) and its subsidiary organs in acting as a catalyst for action at the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’). The power of the UN Security Council (‘UNSC’) to make a referral to the ICC has been increasingly challenged in recent years, due to the perceived misuse of the veto by permanent members and general failings to enforce international criminal law in the face of documented atrocities. Meanwhile, the UNGA and its subsidiary organs have exerted meaningful pressure on the UNSC through the creation of commissions of inquiry and country-specific resolutions. There is the possibility for the UNGA to engage in dialogue with the ICC through ‘quasi-judicial’ resolutions, in coordinating collective responses to a recalcitrant State and individual perpetrators and also through the possible assumption of a referral power. This analysis reveals that the UNGA has become increasingly active in international justice and holds the potential for an enhanced role in addressing the failings of the current UNSC-dominated paradigm governing UN–ICC relations, thereby facilitating States in ‘uniting against impunity’.