ABSTRACT In international criminal law, it is common practice for courts to establish legal principles through their judicial decisions (judicial lawmaking). This procedure arises from the evolving character of international law and has been effectively employed by ad hoc criminal tribunals (particularly the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda). These tribunals have substantially advanced international criminal law by filling legal gaps and interpreting traditional legal principles. This paper investigates whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) may fulfil a comparable role, notwithstanding the stringent constraints established by the Rome Statute. Despite the ICC’s direct integration of fundamental principles such as nullum crimen sine lege, which constrains its judicial lawmaking power relative to its predecessors, this paper contends that the ICC possesses the capacity to evolve the law through judicial precedent. The ICC's exploitation of this potential is essential for deterring international crimes, averting impunity for perpetrators, and facilitating extensive inquiries into crimes against humanity.

ABSTRACT This article reframes the Western Sahara dispute as a translational struggle over sovereignty rather than a primarily geopolitical or juridical conflict. It argues that sovereignty in this case is not a stable legal category awaiting recognition, but a concept produced and reconfigured as it travels across asymmetrical epistemic regimes—precolonial Maghrebi political practice, colonial administration, and the institutional language of international law. Drawing on postcolonial Translation Studies and critical international legal scholarship, the article shows how colonial translation regimes rendered Moroccan relational sovereignty—anchored in the bayʿa—legible only as symbolic loyalty, generating archival silences that later structured what could count as admissible evidence. It then analyzes the International Court of Justice’s 1975 Advisory Opinion as a translation regime that both acknowledged “legal ties” and neutralized their sovereign force by domesticating bayʿa as “allegiance”, privileging colonial documentation, and evaluating Saharan governance through Westphalian criteria. The article analyzes Morocco’s counter-hegemonic strategy of “counter-translation”, especially through narrative reframing and hybrid political texts such as the 2007 Autonomy Plan. The article concludes that translation is not merely implicated in colonial containment; it can also operate as a decolonial strategy—expanding the field of intelligibility, recovering silenced genealogies of authority, and enabling a pluriversal conception of sovereignty.

Submarine fiber-optic cables carry over 99 per cent of international data, yet the legal framework governing cyber operations against these systems remains underdeveloped and fragmented. This article examines the extent to which existing international law—specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the jus ad bellum regime, and international humanitarian law (IHL)—regulates non-kinetic interference with submarine data cables across peacetime, “grey-zone,” and armed conflict contexts. Relying on doctrinal analysis of treaty law, the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals, Tallinn Manual 2.0 rules, and recent national cyber policy statements, the article advances three core claims. First, UNCLOS furnishes a differentiated but incomplete protective framework, providing relatively robust coastal state competences in the territorial sea while leaving significant enforcement and attribution gaps in the exclusive economic zone and on the high seas. Second, emerging practice supports an effects-based approach under which large-scale, intentional disruption of cable functionality may qualify as a “use of force,” and in extreme cases as an “armed attack,” thereby engaging the law on self-defence and countermeasures. Third, IHL’s treatment of submarine data cables as civilian and potentially dual-use objects entails constraints of distinction, proportionality, and precaution that remain insufficiently integrated into cyber operational planning. The article concludes by identifying targeted interpretative and institutional developments necessary to enhance the coherence and predictability of legal protection for submarine data cables without undermining navigational freedoms.

Abstract The International Court of Justice’s strategies for identifying customary international law in both its contentious and advisory proceedings are often viewed as expressions of judicial impartiality. Its reliance on treaties codifying customary norms as well as on functional or equitable reasoning reflects the institutional constraints of its mandate. However, these constraints are not the sole drivers of its approach. The relational nature of international law – particularly the conditions under which norms gain binding force – also shapes the Court’s identification strategies. The relational normativity of customary international law highlights the inescapable role of politics in the Court’s work as it navigates questions of trust, legitimacy and compliance. In this light, the Court functions not only as a judicial body but also as a political actor whose legitimacy depends on balancing rules-based and relational governance before the bench and outside the courtroom.

The Role of International Courts in Ensuring Global Justice

In September 2025, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS), which aims to prohibit fisheries subsidies fueling the overexploitation of fish stocks, entered into force. In doing so, the AFS became the first WTO instrument of international fisheries law (IFL). The AFS creates the possibility of initiating disputes before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, which raises challenges pertaining to fragmentation stemming from differing or contradictory rulings by international courts and tribunals. This article examines the challenge of fragmentation of IFL before analyzing the potential of parallel proceedings under the AFS and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the possibility of indirectly litigating matters previously exempted from compulsory dispute settlement.

Abstract This analysis of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate change focuses on the application of customary international law. The ICJ identifies a customary duty to prevent significant harm to the climate system and some more specific obligations. It notes that these rules apply to every State, irrespective of their participation in climate treaties. What remains less clear, however, is the content of the duty of prevention and, more pragmatically, how courts could assess compliance with this duty. This analysis interprets the Advisory Opinion as suggesting that courts could rely on a set of indicia to determine whether, as a whole, a State is making efforts consistent with customary international law.

This commentary examines the obstacles to Bangladesh's maritime greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction in light of changing international commitments. It places Bangladesh's decarbonization initiatives in the context of the IMO's 2023 GHG Strategy, the GreenVoyage2050 programme and recent advisory opinions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice. The commentary denotes that, while GreenVoyage2050 provides valuable technical support, systematic legal, institutional and financial barriers continue to limit real emission reductions. Delivering maritime GHG emissions reduction in Bangladesh requires extensive legislative reform, institutional development and ongoing international support based on climate justice principles.

ABSTRACT This article re-examines the legal status of NATO-linked stay-behind structures coordinated through the Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC) and the Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC). Using a doctrinal method grounded in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, it reads the UN Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, selected ICJ jurisprudence and parliamentary inquiries in Italy, Belgium and Switzerland together. It argues that clandestine preparation for resistance on a member state's own territory does not ordinarily constitute a present threat or use of force under Article 2(4) of the Charter. The more serious legal problems arise when such assets are used for cross-border covert action, domestic political manipulation, or are maintained without a clear legal basis, ministerial control and parliamentary oversight. ACC and CPC were, therefore, not inherently unlawful, but their legality depended on disciplined mission design and accountable constitutional control.

Purpose This paper aims to examine how multinational enterprises minimise tax liabilities in emerging economies through lawful but engineered cross border structures. Using Rawlsian distributive justice, it assesses whether international tax rules and court responses protect the least advantaged by preventing tax base erosion that reduces funding for essential public services. It also examines how professional intermediaries enable complexity and shape the legitimacy of the international tax order. Design/methodology/approach Doctrinal analysis of judgments from India, Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa is combined with socio legal critique. The cases are mapped to four Rawls grounded assumptions on fairness, fragmentation, transparency and accountability. Findings The cases show repeatable avoidance mechanisms. In India, offshore restructuring treated a value shifting transfer as exempt. In Nigeria, layered group structures and joint venture operations complicated tax enforcement while harm litigation moved abroad. In Ghana, offshore routed payments reduced local scrutiny around public contracts. In South Africa, structured finance re-characterised interest as exempt dividends until challenged under anti avoidance rules. Across contexts, advisers and intermediaries supported opacity and individual accountability was limited. This increases pressure on low-income states with limited institutional capacity. Judicial reasoning shaped outcomes because purposive interpretation protected the tax base, whereas formalism accepted legal form and allowed base erosion that fails a Rawlsian fairness test. Research limitations/implications The focus on four jurisdictions limits generalisation but provides deep insight into ethical and legal asymmetries in global taxation. Practical implications Policymakers should adopt substance based anti-avoidance rules and enforce adviser duties, with promoter disclosure, sanctions and mutual assistance. Originality/value The study links Rawlsian justice to comparative case law and proposes UN reforms that target professional enablers of tax avoidance.

This article examines the complex legal relationship between the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (CUCH). During the negotiation of the CUCH, states diverged sharply on whether the new instrument should be subordinated to UNCLOS, a disagreement that continues to influence ratification practice. Against this background, the article analyzes the absence of an express subordination clause and explores how the interaction between the two treaties must be determined through general treaty law, in particular Articles 304 and 311 UNCLOS and Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The article undertakes a two-way analysis: first, it assesses how UNCLOS regulates the coexistence of subsequent agreements, focusing on the notions of compatibility and preservation; second, it evaluates how the CUCH positions itself vis-à-vis UNCLOS through clauses of non-prejudice, contextual interpretation, and jurisdictional neutrality. Particular attention is given to contested issues such as sunken state vessels, the powers of the Coordinating State in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and the protection regime in the contiguous zone. Drawing on state practice, judicial and arbitral jurisprudence, and recent advisory opinions of international courts and tribunals, the article argues that the relationship between UNCLOS and the CUCH is best understood in terms of functional complementarity rather than hierarchy. It concludes that the CUCH may operate as a compatible specialized regime within UNCLOS’s framework, contributing to the coherent and evolutionary protection of underwater cultural heritage.

Self-determination is no longer seriously challenged as a right under international law. This has been confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and in South African case law. Since the 1960s, the international-law debate relating to self-determination has, to a large extent, been dominated by claims of indigenous peoples to self-determination. This debate culminated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by members of the UN General Assembly. In practice, self-determination nowadays means internal self-determination, which must be distinguished from external self-determination, such as secession, which is extremely rare. Internal self-determination comprises the right of an indigenous people living in a sovereign state to determine freely their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The terms “indigenous people” and “indigenous community” have become synonymous with “ethnocultural people” or “ethnocultural community”, and the distinctions between the two are no longer watertight. It is submitted that the main purpose of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019 (Khoisan Act) is aimed at the Khoisan as an ethnocultural community, although this is not evident in the Preamble of the Act. In discussing the Khoisan Act, attention is paid to its serious deficiencies. A brief reference is made to the Hungarian Roma, where an institutionalised exercise similar to that of the Khoisan Act has been embarked upon. It is a moot point whether the Khoisan Act achieves its objectives. It is proposed that the perceived objectives of the Khoisan Act can be better achieved by following the example of the Noongar Settlement in Western Australia, which has become a valuable case study on the recognition of minority rights.

The article provides a thorough analysis of the origins, historical development, and genesis of the principles of international justice as a key element in the formation of the modern international legal order. The author reveals the historical origins of the institution of international justice, emphasizing its emergence as a civilized alternative to the forceful methods of resolving interstate disputes that dominated in previous eras. Particular attention is paid to the gradual transition from military and coercive forms of conflict resolution to legal and procedurally regulated mechanisms based on the principles of equality, justice, and mutual respect between states. In the context of the historical development of international justice, the emergence of arbitration forms of dispute resolution in Ancient Greece, where the institutional foundations for the creation of independent arbitration bodies first appeared, is traced. In particular, the role of the arbitration commissions of the ancient amphictyony is emphasized, whose activities contributed to the establishment of the first supranational norms and practices of peaceful conflict resolution between political communities. A separate section of the study is devoted to the process of doctrinal understanding of the idea of international justice in the works of thinkers of the 17th–18th centuries. The focus is on the concepts of Jeremy Bentham, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and other representatives of Enlightenment legal thought, who viewed international justice as a practical manifestation of the principles of humanism, rationalism, and justice in inter-state relations. In particular, I. Kant, in his “Perpetual Peace,” put forward the idea of creating an international court as an instrument for preventing wars, which was later reflected in the development of the global legal system. In conclusion, it is noted that the formation of general principles of international justice is the result of a long evolution of legal thought, political practice, and international experience, which has gradually strengthened the position of law as a universal means of maintaining peace and security. These principles became the foundation for the creation of modern international judicial institutions, such as the Permanent Court of International Justice, the UN International Court of Justice, and other specialized tribunals, whose activities ensure the rule of law on a global scale. Keywords: international judiciary, international adjudication, principles of law, international arbitration, arbitral tribunals, peaceful settlement of disputes, international judicial institutions, doctrine of international law.

ABSTRACT The recognition of states remains one of the most contested issues in international law, particularly where secession, sovereignty, and territorial integrity intersect. This article examines Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, a self-declared entity that has exercised effective governance since 1991 but lacks broad international recognition. Using a doctrinal-analytical methodology, the study evaluates the legality of recognition under the United Nations Charter, the Montevideo Convention, customary international law, and relevant International Court of Justice jurisprudence. It further situates Israel’s decision within comparative precedents such as Kosovo and Taiwan, highlighting the political dimensions of recognition. The central research question asks whether Israel’s recognition violates Somalia’s territorial integrity under international law. The article argues that it does not. Recognition, as a unilateral diplomatic act unaccompanied by force or coercive intervention, does not breach the prohibition on the use of force or the principle of non-intervention. However, while legally permissible, the recognition carries significant political and normative consequences, potentially influencing regional stability and the evolving balance between territorial integrity and self-determination in contemporary international law.

ABSTRACT Certain institutions, mechanisms and processes preserve the coherence of international water law, despite its proliferation and the diversity of its sources, within a unitary system of international law. These include the universalist instincts of international courts, routine legal codification, the integrative role of general principles, and the universal character of increasingly relevant human rights norms. ‘Convergence’ unifies and enriches modern international water law some 60 years after first being codified, assisting it in addressing challenges posed by the looming global water crisis through the gradual interpenetration and cross-fertilization of previously somewhat compartmentalized areas of international law.

International law considers maritime access to be a fundamental requirement for all countries which do not have direct access to the ocean. This research assesses how the International Court of Justice decision in Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) affects Ethiopia's attempt to secure Red Sea access through the Assab port. The 1993 Eritrean independence declaration resulted in Ethiopia losing its coastal territory which created major economic and geopolitical obstacles for the country. Some scholars argue that the ICJ’s rejection of Bolivia’s claim against Chile weakens similar claims by landlocked states seeking maritime access. The objective of this study is to assess whether the legal reasoning in Bolivia v. Chile affects Ethiopia's claim to Assab. The research study uses doctrinal legal research to examine international legal principles and applicable treaties and judicial rulings. The findings indicate that the ICJ judgment does not necessarily undermine Ethiopia's claim because the historical and legal circumstances surrounding Ethiopia differ significantly from those of Bolivia. The study concludes that Ethiopia's pursuit of access to the Red Sea remains legally arguable and recommends peaceful negotiation and regional cooperation as viable pathways for resolving the dispute.

The jurisdictional limits of the international criminal court in prosecuting non-member states

ABSTRACT While some have welcomed climate litigation as a potential instrument for climate justice, others have dissmissed courts as a futile weapon against the carbon economies in which they are embedded. This paper investigates a paradigmatic case filed by Russian civil society against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights. It asks: Why pursue climate litigation against an authoritarian regime that is unlikely to implement an international court decision, at the risk of personal persecution? The paper theorises the Russian case as co-production of prefigurative legality. It explores how the political significance of strategic climate litigation is co-produced by involved actors, and what futures, normative principles, subjectivities, political messages, and knowledges the case generates and is shaped by. The paper contributes to an understanding of climate litigation as a practice of democratic resistance in authoritarian contexts and a technique of just future-making.

This study examines Israel’s violations against Palestinian journalists during the Gaza War 2023–2025 within the framework of international humanitarian law (IHL). Adopting a Critical Legal Studies perspective, the study recognizes that IHL operates within unequal power structures and does not assume neutrality. The Gaza War, precipitated by the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, occurs against the broader context of the Israeli siege since 2006 and the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine. The study analyses the legal protections afforded to journalists in armed conflicts, documents Israeli violations, and proposes measures to strengthen accountability and safeguard media workers. Employing a descriptive-analytical approach, it reviews IHL frameworks—including Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions—and evaluates media and human rights reports. Findings reveal violations by Israeli forces, including targeted killings, movement restrictions, communication blackout, and attacks on media infrastructure, all of which contravene IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. The study highlights the persistent enforcement gap in protecting the Palestinian journalists as civilians and advocates for enhanced HL protections, independent investigations and the use of international courts to ensure journalist safety and uphold press freedom.

Q: Why does nationality matter? Why does it matter from the perspective of the state and why does it matter from the perspective of the parties to the dispute? Former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Bertha Wilson wrote an article in 1990 entitled “Will Women Judges Really Make a Difference?” 1 in which she examined the perspective one’s gender gives to framing and deciding legal issues. I think one’s nationality plays a similar role. There is a collective experience with, and perspective on, international law (fostered by conferences like the CCIL’s annual conference and the mere existence of the CYIL ) that is distinctly ours. To the state, the legitimacy of a decision in a dispute to which the state is a party is probably enhanced by having a national on the court (with the International Court of Justice [ICJ], this perception can be accomplished with the appointment of ad hoc judges where the disputing state does not have a judge of its nationality on the bench). However, this would not account for the contribution that Canadians can make to international courts and tribunals involving other states on international law issues generally. For as you all know, international law is not just made by treaty making but also through judicial interpretations of those treaties and state practice.