Humanitarian forensics is an expanding multidisciplinary field that uses forensic science to support humanitarian operations in post-conflict, catastrophe, and human-rights contexts. This commentary underscores the pivotal importance of forensic methodologies in the identification of victims, investigation of human rights violations, and pursuit of justice and accountability in mass atrocities and war crimes. It also elucidates, with examples, the significance of forensic methodologies in disaster victim identification, international tribunal prosecutions, and providing resolution to families of missing persons. The evolution of humanitarian forensics is examined, from initial applications during World War II to the establishment of protocols by international organisations. Suggestions are offered for improving forensic capability, interdisciplinary cooperation, and incorporating developing technologies. Ethical and logistical issues, including cultural sensitivity, data management, and the balancing of legal and humanitarian goals are examined. Humanitarian forensics plays a vital role in upholding international humanitarian law and advancing peace, justice, and healing after major global disasters.

Considered the Constitution for the Oceans, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) is a multilateral international treaty that covers the most important legal issues related to seas and oceans. Since its entry into force on 16 November 1994, UNCLOS 1982 has demonstrated its importance in many aspects, contributing to peace and stability at sea. Meanwhile, climate change is a global environmental challenge that directly affects human health and life. Addressing climate change is a shared responsibility of the international community, requiring states, including Vietnam, to be proactive in enacting and effectively implementing relevant legal regulations. In this context, this article aims to study and evaluate the role of UNCLOS 1982 in the global fight against climate change. Using analytical and comparative methods, the article first provides an overview of UNCLOS 1982 and climate change, and explores their interrelationships. It then analyses specific provisions of UNCLOS 1982 on climate change to assess Vietnam's capacity to respond to climate change. Finally, the article reviews and discusses the current provisions of Vietnamese law on climate change and analyses their relationship with UNCLOS 1982. In particular, the article evaluates the role of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in addressing climate change by examining its Advisory Opinion dated May 21, 2024. Based on the analysis, the article proposes some recommendations to enhance Vietnam’s proactive engagement in the global response to climate change.

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.

Abstract His Excellency Ambassador Mahmoud Hmoud is Jordan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and a candidate for the International Court of Justice ( ICJ ). As a Jordanian diplomat and international lawyer, Ambassador Hmoud’s career has been dedicated to international law. He has represented Jordan in international negotiations for numerous bilateral and multilateral treaties and has acted as counsel before international courts and tribunals. He also served as a member of the International Law Commission ( ILC ) for 16 years, including as its chair in 2021. Ambassador Hmoud talks about his experience as the then youngest ever member of the ILC and his view of the evolving nature of international law and the institutions and individuals that support it. He offers his perspective on the role of the ICJ , its relationships within the international system, as well as his approach to becoming a new member of the Court.

ABSTRACT While citizenship by investment (CBI) schemes are a relatively recent phenomenon, debates regarding the instrumentalisation of nationality have existed ever since this institution became broadly established in the nineteenth century. This is due to the fact that nationality does not only impact the relations between individuals and states, but also between states. As the European Commission noted with respect to CBI schemes, the attribution of nationality by a state carries consequences with respect to other states. Notably, nationality entitles a state to invoke the responsibility of another state through diplomatic protection, and enables individuals to bring direct claims against states under international investment agreements. This article shows how the conferral of nationality upon individuals can have major implications not only for the procedural rights of these individuals, notably as investors, but also for the territorial sovereignty and integrity of states. Placing the restrictive 1955 definition of nationality given by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Nottebohm within its historical and contemporary context, it explains how the limits occasionally placed by international courts and tribunals on the international effects caused by the attribution of nationality were reactions to the use of the latter as an interventionist tool.

Abstract In its Advisory Opinion on the Request submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law , the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) concluded that, under Article 192 of the UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), States must take all necessary measures to protect and preserve the marine environment from the impacts of climate change. Acknowledging the disruptive effects of climate change on fish stocks, the Tribunal concluded that Article 192 gives rise to additional obligations under international fisheries law. In particular, States must take climate change impacts into account when conserving and managing fish stocks pursuant to Articles 61, 63, 64, and 117–119 of UNCLOS. This article analyzes ITLOS’ interpretation of these provisions. It then explores their practical implications and applications, given the Tribunal’s limited guidance. Finally, it argues that certain obligations concerning climate-driven stock redistribution remain insufficiently clarified.

The Monsoon Revolution was the overthrow of a fifteen-year dictatorship of Hasina Wajid in August 2024. This paper explores the X Twitter dual role in the crisis, which allows the domestic dissent and the international tribunal of legitimacy. Whereas Facebook helped to mobilize in the streets, Twitter further increased the weaknesses of the regime, particularly when the whole country experienced an internet outage in mid-July, thus unwittingly passing the control of the microphone to the diaspora. The analysis of 315 viral posts through critical discourse analysis showed that there was an interruption of the state narrative, targets of attack were major figures and cultural symbols, and the discourse became more about necro politics. The results indicate that strategic digital activism hastened the collapse of the regime proving the strength of globalized social media in determining domestic politics. The paper concludes by observing that digital sovereignty can serve as the key factor in the modern form of governance because political and economic institutions are becoming more and more vulnerable in the hyper-connected world.

The article examines the legal status of prisoners of war in the context of Russia’s undeclared war against Ukraine. It is emphasized that during the Russian-Ukrainian war, the issue of ensuring the rights and interests of prisoners of war, the activities of relevant state bodies and officials, as well as holding the aggressor country internationally liable for violations of these rights is particularly relevant. It is outlined that the system of regulatory legal acts of international humanitarian law and national legislation establishes the rights and obligations of prisoners of war and the procedure for their detention in accordance with international obligations. A special role in determining the legal status of prisoners of war is played by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, which establishes rules and standards for their protection, establishes their rights and obligations, as well as a list of obligations of the states that detain them. It is noted that the structure of the legal status of prisoners of war includes: 1) the rights of prisoners of war, which include general human rights and special status rights; a significant part of these rights is enshrined in the Convention by analogy with the situations applicable to members of the Armed Forces of the Detaining Power; 2) the obligations of prisoners of war, including submission to the laws, statutes and orders of the Detaining Power, as well as the obligation to provide personal data; 3) guarantees for the implementation of these rights by the Detaining Power; 4) the legal responsibility of prisoners of war, in particular disciplinary and criminal. In the event of a violation of the rights of prisoners of war by the Detaining Power, it is responsible to the international community and the victims. According to the decision of international tribunals or other judicial bodies, such a State is obliged to provide reparations or compensation to the injured persons or to the States whose prisoners of war have suffered from the violation of their rights.

The recent advisory opinions on climate change by the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, alongside the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Klimaseniorinnen, extend their legal implications to international tax law. These implications reach well beyond tax measures that directly impact mitigation, such as exemptions for fossil fuels. According to these pronouncements, the obligations under the Paris Agreement, the customary duty to prevent significant environmental harm and other applicable law, oblige states to undertake tax reforms within their national circumstances when necessary to ensure the fiscal adequacy of domestic climate measures. Also, the duty to cooperate requires states to better align international tax rules with climate objectives. Amending tax treaties to reflect climate objectives – such as introducing variable withholding tax rates or capital gains taxing rights based on environmental concerns – deserves consideration. Through the prism of climate legal obligations, the influence of international law – including customary international law previously considered of limited efficacy in constraining tax sovereignty – is substantially strengthened within the tax domain.

It is indicated that the full-scale war against Ukraine has exacerbated the problem of ensuring the right of victims of war crimes to restitution and compensation for losses in the context of systemic violations of international humanitarian law. Restoring justice after the end of hostilities should include not only criminal prosecution of the perpetrators, but also guaranteeing full compensation for material and moral damage to the victims. Restitution and compensation for losses are key components of transitional justice, designed to restore violated rights and form the basis for post-conflict reconstruction of society. The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal, evidentiary, and institutional mechanisms for the implementation of the right to restitution and compensation for damage suffered by victims of war crimes in the context of the armed aggression against Ukraine. Restitution and compensation are examined as key elements of transitional justice aimed at restoring status quo ante, ensuring justice, and compensating losses incurred by natural and legal persons as a result of violations of international humanitarian law. The study analyzes international legal standards enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, and the case law of international tribunals, which recognize the inalienable right of victims to the restoration of property rights, compensation for losses, and reparations for harm caused in the context of armed conflict and the imposition of martial law. Particular attention is paid to the importance of an adequate evidentiary framework as a prerequisite for the effective realization of compensation rights in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. The article outlines methodologies for documenting destruction through the systematic collection of photo and video materials, recording witness testimonies, and preserving title documents and cadastral data. It examines innovative practices involving digital tools, including OSINT technologies, geospatial analytics, satellite imagery, and blockchain registries, to ensure the authenticity, verification, and long- term preservation of evidence. National and international mechanisms for documenting damage are analyzed, as well as the role of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies in establishing causal links between the actions of the aggressor and the damage inflicted, and in securing the recovery of reparations. The necessity of interagency coordination to enhance the quality of evidence and the effectiveness of victims’ rights protection is substantiated.

It is a privilege to write a preface to this Symposium on Canada before International Courts and Tribunals, which includes many stimulating and insightful contributions. In this preface, I go back to the beginning and focus on Canada’s first cases at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and before international arbitral tribunals.

In recent months, the conflict in eastern Congo has intensified once again after following significant military gains by the armed group known as M23 in the territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo. In early 2025, the group captured several strategically important towns, from which numerous reports of serious violations of international law subsequently emerged. A longstanding question surrounding M23’as operations concerns the extent of support provided by neighbouring Rwanda. This study focuses primarily on Rwanda’s role in the conflict. After a brief historical overview, it examines whether the wrongful acts committed by M23 units may be attributed to Rwanda. Establishing attribution is essential to determining whether Rwanda’s international responsibility may arise. The analysis first considers whether M23 could be seen as a de facto state organ under Article 4 of the ARSIWA. The study then turns to Article 8 of the ARSIWA. It outlines the “effective control” and “overall control” tests, developed by various international tribunals. The conflict also highlights the widespread presence of non-state armed groups on modern battlefields and the close forms of cooperation they may develop with states. Given the divergent evidentiary standards applied by different international bodies, attribution remains a complex endeavour. The author’s view is that a more coherent and harmonised evaluative framework would enhance legal clarity and predictability in the field of international responsibility.

Objective: The bar institute constitutes a fundamental component of the legal system, ensuring the effective protection of legal rights and interests of individuals and business entities within economic processes. This article examines the institutional role of the bar in economic proceedings, emphasizing the importance of lawyers’ professional independence, ethical standards, and functional versatility. Method: Using a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, the study analyzes the participation of lawyers not only as legal representatives but also as legal service providers under civil-law contracts, arbitrators in arbitration and international commercial tribunals, and court administrators in insolvency and economic cases. Results: The findings demonstrate that maintaining the independence of lawyers through civil-law contractual arrangements enhances impartiality, prevents conflicts of interest, and strengthens access to justice. Furthermore, the study highlights that lawyers’ involvement in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and court administration contributes significantly to procedural efficiency and economic stability. Novelty: The article concludes that the bar institute plays a decisive role in safeguarding the rule of law, promoting fair economic dispute resolution, and supporting sustainable economic development in line with international legal standards.

Abstract This contribution examines the application of causation and damage in the internal and external systems of EU liability. It is divided into three main parts. The first part sets out the context of each system, with regard to the nature and scope of EU non-contractual liability and international responsibility, as well as the main conditions that must be satisfied. The second and third parts respectively explore how the elements of causation and damage are assessed in each system, taking account of salient case-law of the EU Courts regarding EU non-contractual liability and the relevant provisions of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, along with select case-law of international courts and tribunals, in relation to international responsibility. Through this analysis, the author argues that the relevant case-law and practice indicate that the internal and external systems of EU liability take similar approaches in respect of certain basic principles guiding their application.

'The Classification of Obligations in Public International Law', in A. Ollino and I. Papanicolopulu (eds), The Concept of Obligation in International Law (OUP, 2026, forthcoming)

Beyond Gap-Filling: Four Functions of Principles of International Law Through the Lens of Due Diligence

The relevance of the study is determined by the need to improve theoretical and practical approaches to the investigation of war crimes, ensuring their effective detection and documentation in the process of proof. The purpose of the study was a comprehensive investigation of the structural elements of the criminalistic characteristics of war crimes provided for in both Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, considering the practice of national and international courts, and the development of proposals for optimal ways of Investigation. The methodological basis of the research was formal legal, comparative legal, dogmatic, systematic methods, empirical study of investigative and judicial practice. The practical basis of the study was the materials of criminal proceedings on the fact of committing war crimes committed on the territory of Ukraine, and the case law of international (special) tribunals. As a result of the research, the content and structure of the criminalistic characteristics of war crimes were clarified, its significance for establishing the circumstances to be proved was determined, and key problems that affect the process of proof in an armed conflict were identified. Attention was paid to the contextual signs of violations of the laws and customs of war, which were integrated into the criminalistic characteristics of war crimes, as system-forming elements that determine the specifics of investigations, considering the method of commission, the mechanism of the event, the identity of the criminal and the victim, socially dangerous consequences, and their relationship with what was committed. For the first time, forensic signs of war crimes were systematised, considering international legal qualifications and specific conditions of investigation. The practical significance of the results obtained lies in the possibility of their use in the practical activities of the pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutorʼs office and the court to increase the effectiveness in the investigation process and prove the guilt of persons involved in violations of the laws and customs of war

Can the Advisory Opinion Strengthen the International Response to Climate Change?

This article examines the evolution of the concept of systemic integration, from its understanding in the process of developing the general rule of interpretation of international treaties to its contemporary interpretation in the context of the greening of contemporary international law. The author analyzes the specifics and methodology of applying the concept of systemic integration by the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in their climate advisory opinions. The article’s methodological basis is represented by a synthesis of historical, doctrinal, comparative, functional, and contextual approaches to studying the specifics of applying the concept of systemic integration in the framework of the three aforementioned climate advisory opinions. The study begins with an examination of the origins of the concept in contemporary international law and its conceptualization within the framework of the report of the Study Group of the UN International Law Commission “Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expanding Scope of International Law”. The author then turns to an analysis of the methodology of interpretation and application of the principle of systemic integration by the relevant international court in issuing each of the three advisory opinions, and also conducts a comparative analysis of them. This section of the article is especially focused on the context, functional, institutional, and legal frameworks for issuing advisory opinions and their impact on the development of approaches to the scope of the principle of systemic integration. In the final section of the article, the author conducts a prospective analysis of the material and comes to the conclusion that, in modern conditions, the concept of systemic integration bears increasing burden in the context of the processes of differentiation and integration in international law. The examined advisory opinions confirm the thesis outlined in the report on fragmentation that systemic integration is a “master key” that allows, firstly, to reduce the risks associated with the fragmentation of international law and the proliferation of international courts; secondly, to ensure the systemic nature of international law through a balanced impact both on the system as a whole and on its individual components, shaping the harmonious development of international legal regulation; and thirdly, to encourage, where necessary, the specialization of international legal regulation.

Contemporary international justice is seeing a significant increase in the number of interstate disputes, both at the regional and universal levels. This is largely due to states’ changing attitudes toward international justice, which is increasingly viewed as an effective foreign policy tool capable of achieving a wide range of goals. In specific disputes, guided by the principle of competitive, states meticulously consider every detail and every issue, including the key issue of jurisdiction, which is crucial to questions of legitimacy. Respondent states strive to pay maximum attention to fulfilling the terms of their treaty-based consent to submit a dispute, such as the requirement for mandatory negotiations before filing a claim in court or arbitration. In our view, such jurisdictional requirements also include the consideration of the dispute by an independent and impartial panel of judges (arbitrators). In other words, the bias of arbitrators or judges affects not only the legitimacy of the decision rendered, that is, how it is perceived by the parties to the dispute, but also the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal. Through a doctrinal perspective, the author offers a legal analysis of a complex and intricate case submitted to ad hoc arbitration under Annex VII of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in which the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea also played a significant role. A systematic analysis employing both inductive and deductive methods yields new conclusions that can be actively applied. As the consideration of issues of impartiality in this case shows, the election of a judge or arbitrator in international justice requires reasonable restraint and prudence from scientists and practicing international lawyers in expressing their position. The principle of impartiality and independence of judges of international courts has become a practically used mechanism for ensuring the fair administration of international justice. Consent to an arbitration procedure for dispute resolution presupposes the confidence of the parties to the dispute that they will be heard by the arbitral tribunal, as well as that the latter will adhere to the principles of fair dispute resolution, in particular, it will be independent and impartial.